Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: BC672129, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC672129 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: 26
Bachhus v. Thomson, et al.
MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL
(CCP
§ 657)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Haroun Bacchus’ Motion
for New Trial is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
On August 11,
2017, Plaintiff Haroun Bacchus (“Plaintiff”)
filed the Complaint in this action against Defendant Misty Thomson
(“Defendant”) in the unlimited jurisdiction court. The Complaint originally
alleged Defendant illegally locked Plaintiff out of their apartment in
violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 789.3 and sought monetary and
injunctive relief. The operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint,
filed on December 18, 2019. On January 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the first, second, third and fifth
causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.
(Minute Order, 01/12/22.) The only remaining cause of action is for breach of
contract re: nonpayment of the utility bill. (Ibid.) The Court then
reclassified the action as a limited jurisdiction case and it was transferred
to Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. (Notice of Reclassification,
01/26/22.) On June 22, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
(Minute Order, 06/22/22.)
On December 21,
2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint.
(Minute Order, 12/21/22.) Plaintiff filed the Supplemental Complaint on
December 30, 2022. Trial was held on January 10, 2023, with judgment in favor
of Defendant. (Judgment, 01/10/23.) Notice of entry of the judgment was served
on the parties by the clerk on the same date.
Plaintiff filed a
Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial on January 25, 2023, and the
supporting memorandum on February 6, 2023. Plaintiff also filed a Notice of
Errata on March 14, 2023. Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion on March
27, 2023.
Discussion
Plaintiff brings the instant Motion for New Trial
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 656 and 657. Specifically, the
Motion relies on Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subdivisions (1)-(4),
which state as follows:
The verdict may be vacated, and any other
decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further
trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party
aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the
substantial rights of such party:
1.
Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or
adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either
party was prevented from having a fair trial.
2.
Misconduct of the jury; and whenever any one or more of
the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to
a finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the
determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any
one of the jurors.
3.
Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against.
4.
Newly discovered evidence, material for the party
making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered and produced at the trial.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subds. (1)-(4).) The
statute also requires the Court to specify the ground(s) upon which a motion
for new trial is granted and the reason(s) for granting the new trial upon each
ground stated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) In comparison, “California law does
not mandate that the trial court state on the record why it refused to
interfere with the award.” (Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
(1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1645, 1656 [citing Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas
Center Associates (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1258].) “The determination of
a motion for a new trial rests so completely within the court’s discretion that
its action will not be disturbed unless a manifest and unmistakable abuse of
discretion clearly appears.” (McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. (2013) 216
Cal.App.4th 283, 303 [citing Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971)
4 Cal.3d 379, 387].)
Discussion
Plaintiff asserts several grounds for the
motion. Each is meritless.
1.
“Irregularity in the proceedings:” Plaintiff asks the
Court to set aside the ruling of another court granting Judgment on the
Pleadings on the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action. Plaintiff has supplied no new factual or legal
basis for such an extraordinary action. Plaintiff having been heard on the
motion and again on appeal of that ruling, the Court will decline this request.
2.
Trial
a.
Plaintiff was not prejudiced by a brief reference to his
alleged violence where his objection was sustained, and the reference stricken
from the record. Even the erroneous
admission of such evidence would not support setting aside a judgment or
decision unless this resulted in a “miscarriage of justice.” California
Evidence Code Section 353. This judgment is not based upon or in any way
affected by a brief reference to a supposed act of violence which was not accompanied
by any evidence.
b. The Court’s adoption of a tentative decision, having heard no objection, is sound. El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff’s Association v. County of El Dorado (2016) 244 CA 4th 950. Plaintiff’s reliance on California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308 (a)(1) is misplaced: that rule pertains to motions, not judgements. In this motion, Plaintiff now presents the best legal and factual arguments he could have made at that time, but they lack substance. The evidence presented at trial does not demonstrate unjust enrichment, nor was the defense evidence ‘insufficient’ where it was Plaintiff who failed to meet his burden of proof.
c.
“Accident or surprise,” is not shown within the meaning
of the statute by tardiness or notebook malfunction, which are insignificant
details having no effect whatsoever on the proceedings.
d.
“Insufficiency of the evidence” is different from erroneous
admission of evidence, which will not support a new trial unless this resulted
in “a miscarriage of justice.” California Evidence Code Section 353. Here, the admission of documentary evidence
which was illustrative or corroborative of admissible testimony tending to
refute Plaintiff’s claim cannot equate to ‘insufficiency of evidence’ where it
is Plaintiff who failed to meet the burden of proof. In any event, a writing can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence
and by its contents. People v. Skiles (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1178,
1187. This was the case
with the telephone bills.
e.
Plaintiff ascribes an “error in law” to the Court’s
finding no breach of contract or unjust enrichment. The argument falls short where the Court’s ruling
is based upon its assessment of the evidence, which failed to amount to proof
of such breach or of unjust enrichment.
f.
Plaintiff also claims “error in law” by Judge Karlan is
his granting Judgment on the Pleadings as to four causes of action, yet Plaintiff
simply references arguments previously made and rejected by that Court. This supplies no reason to second-guess the
rulings of that Court.
Thus, Plaintiff Haroun Bacchus’ Motion for New Trial is
DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.