Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV10849, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV10849    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 15, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Moving Party: Defendant Land Rover North America, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Michelle Sofia Smirnov

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, reply, and supplemental briefing.

BACKGROUND

            This is a lemon law action arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2014 Land Rover Range Rover Sport, manufactured and distributed by Defendant Land Rover North America, LLC. On October 27, 2022, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on the claim of breach of warranty.

ANALYSIS

On February 23, 2023, Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenging the jury award of prejudgment interest came for hearing. The Court had posted a tentative ruling granting the motion. Following the hearing, the Court requested additional briefing on the issue of whether JNOV was the correct means to challenge the jury’s award. The parties filed concurrent supplemental briefing on March 3, 2023.

In the supplemental briefing, Plaintiff asserts that the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide Defendant’s motion because it was not timely filed. Plaintiff did not raise this issue in the opposing papers or at the hearing.

CCP § 629(b) provides, “…the hearing on the motion [for judgment notwithstanding the verdict] shall be set in the same manner as the hearing on a motion for new trial under Section 660.” CCP § 660 states, “the power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 75 days after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5 or 75 days after service on the moving party by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, whichever is earlier, or if that notice has not been given, 75 days after the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial. If the motion is not determined within the 75-day period, or within that period as extended, the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.”

Plaintiff served notice of judgment on November 16, 2022. Defendant filed the notice of intent to move for JNOV on November 28, 2022. Using the latest date of November 28, 2022, 75 days later would be Saturday February 11, 2023, making Tuesday February 14, 2023 (Monday 3/13 was a court holiday) the deadline for deciding this motion. As stated, the motion was heard on February 23, 2023. Defendant never asked the Court to move up the hearing date to address this issue.

The deadlines of CCP § 660 are jurisdictional. The Court is without power to rule on the motion. The motion is DENIED.

Hearing Date: March 15, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Award Prejudgment Interest at a Rate of 10%

Moving Party: Plaintiff Michelle Sofia Smirnov

Responding Party: Defendant Land Rover North America, LLC

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This is a lemon law action arising from Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2014 Land Rover Range Rover Sport, manufactured and distributed by Defendant Land Rover North America, LLC. On October 27, 2022, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on the claim of breach of warranty.

ANALYSIS

            Plaintiff moves for an award of interest at the rate of 10% per annum under Civil Code § 3289(b). Section 3289(b) provides, “If a contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does not stipulate a legal rate of interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per annum after a breach.” Plaintiff seeks $32,961.99 in interest.

            In opposition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is not entitled to interest under Civil Code § 3287, which allows for interest in actions where damages are calculable to a sum certain. Defendant argues that the Court should grant its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and not allow Plaintiff to collect any prejudgment interest.

            At Plaintiff’s request, the Court instructed the jury on prejudgment interest under Civil Code § 3288, which applies to non-contract obligations. Plaintiff argued that express and implied warranties from a manufacturer who is not a party to the sales contract are not part of the sales contract. The jury awarded Plaintiff prejudgment interest on the amount of $78,090.65 as of August 8, 2018.

Plaintiff now asks the Court to award prejudgment interest at the rate for contract obligations under Civil Code § 3289(b).

Plaintiff appears to advocate for whichever code section best fits her needs of the moment. According to Plaintiff, section 3288 applies (it’s not a contract case) when Plaintiff seeks to present the issue of prejudgment interest to the jury, but section 3289 applies (it’s a contract case) when it is time to set the rate of prejudgment interest. Plaintiff cites no authority permitting this, and her malleable views cannot be reconciled. Plaintiff has failed to establish entitlement to interest at 10% per annum. Plaintiff provides no argument justifying a different rate.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.