Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: NC061736, Date: 2022-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: NC061736    Hearing Date: November 22, 2022    Dept: S27

1.     Timeline

·         8/26/22       Court concludes non-jury trial re: punitive damages, finds Goldberg not credible, finds in favor of Plaintiff on issue of punitive damages, indicates it will enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Goldberg for punitive damages in the amount of $214,959.88.  Court orders Plaintiffs to submit a judgment by 9/02/22.

·         9/13/22       Defendant Rucci files and serves Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial, which is accompanied by a transcript of the 8/24/21 trial proceedings, a tax return, and exam changes from the IRS.

·         9/21/22       Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Lieberman against Goldberg and Rucci in the amount of $51,960.97, in favor of VIP against Goldberg and Rucci in the amount of $1779, and in favor of Plaintiffs, jointly, against Goldberg for punitive damages in the amount of $214,959.88.

·         9/29/22       Plaintiffs file and serve Notice of Entry of Judgment

·         10/18/22      Goldberg files and serves a Motion for New Trial

·         10/19/22      Goldberg and Rucci file and serve a joint motion for JNOV and motion to vacate judgment

2.     Objections

Plaintiffs have responded to each of the motions for new trial, as well as the motion for JNOV/motion to vacate, by way of objection only.  Plaintiffs have not filed substantive responses to any of the motions on calendar today.

3.     Motion for New Trial (Rucci)

Plaintiffs object to Rucci’s motion for new trial on the ground that Rucci never filed or served any points and authorities in support of his motion, nor did he file or serve any affidavits in support of the motion.  Plaintiffs concede Rucci timely filed his notice of intent to move for new trial, but contend his failure to file points and authorities and affidavits within ten days thereafter, as required by CCP §656 and 659, as well as CRC 3.1600(a), is fatal to his motion.

Rucci filed a response to Plaintiffs’ objection.  He contends, in his response, that he filed all necessary documents concurrently with his notice of intent.  Alternatively, he contends his affidavit filed in connection with Co-Defendant, Goldberg’s motion for new trial should be considered, and indicates he will re-file that affidavit in support of this motion; the Court has no record of him doing so.

The Court finds Rucci timely filed points and authorities WITH his notice of intent.  The Code requires points and authorities to be filed within ten days after filing the notice of intent.  Rucci filed the points and authorities concurrently with the notice of intent, which is within the statutorily mandated time. 

He failed, however, to file any affidavits with the notice of intent.  Instead, he merely filed three unauthenticated exhibits.  He has not, to date, filed any affidavits in support of his motion.  His failure to do so is fatal to his motion, and it is summarily denied.

4.     Motion for New Trial (Goldberg)

Goldberg filed his motion for new trial on 10/18/22.  He did not file a notice of intent to move for new trial, instead filing a “motion for new trial,” which includes points and authorities and four unauthenticated exhibits. 

Plaintiffs correctly note that CCP §659 makes clear that the filing of a notice of intent to move for new trial by one party creates an obligation on the part of any other party wishing to move for new trial to do within fifteen days thereafter.  Because Rucci filed his motion on 9/13/22, Goldberg’s time to file a motion expired on 9/28/22, but he did not move until 10/18/22.  His motion is not timely, and is summarily denied.  Notably, while Goldberg filed a “response” to Plaintiffs’ objections to his motion for JNOV and to vacate judgment, he did not file any response to Plaintiffs’ objection to his motion for new trial.

5.     Motion for JNOV/Motion to Vacate (Jointly Filed by Rucci and Goldberg)

Plaintiffs object to the motion for JNOV/motion to vacate, contending it was not timely filed.  A motion for JNOV is governed by the same time limits as a motion for new trial, including the 15-day calculation once any other party has moved for new trial.  CCP §§629(b), 659.  A motion to vacate is also governed by those same limits.  §663a(a)(1), (2).  Thus, the motion for JNOV and motion to vacate is untimely for the same reasons detailed above in connection with the motion for new trial, and is also summarily denied.

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.