Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV32342, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV32342    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 16, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Moving Party: Defendant Fiji Water Company, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Carolina Beverage Corporation, Dixie Riverside, Inc. and Alligator Beverage, LLC

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, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On September 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Carolina Beverage Corporation, Dixie Riverside, Inc. and Alligator Beverage, LLC sued Defendant Fiji Water Company, LLC, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud (concealment and false promise).[1] The action arises out of beverage distribution agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Plaintiffs distributed Defendant’s products to retailers in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia for several years. Defendant then moved to a new distribution model, in which Defendant would distribute its products directly. Plaintiffs allege Defendant breached the distribution agreements by secretly offering lower prices to Plaintiffs’ customers, to persuade them to buy directly from Defendant. Plaintiffs allege Defendants did not disclose their new distribution model to Plaintiffs and instead assured them that it was business as usual.

On April 29, 2022, the jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on the contract causes of action and in favor of Defendant on the tort causes of action. Plaintiffs were awarded $1,993,670.00 damages.

ANALYSIS

The trial court has limited discretion to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; it may grant it only when there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. (Teitel v. First Los Angeles Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1593, 1603. Campbell v. Cal-Gard Surety Services, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 563, 570.) A judgment notwithstanding the verdict can be sustained only when it can be said as a matter of law that no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, and that any other holding would be so lacking in evidentiary support that the reviewing court would be compelled to reverse it, or the trial court would be compelled to set it aside as a matter of law. (Moore v. City and County of San Francisco (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 728, 733–734.)

The trial court renders judgment notwithstanding the verdict when a motion for directed verdict should have been granted if made (CCP § 629). (Hansen v. Sunnyside Products, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510 [Rev. Den. 9/17/97]; Walton v. Magno (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1239–1240.) The trial judge cannot, therefore, reweigh the evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses; if the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied.  (Teitel, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at 1603.)

Defendant moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that (1) the termination payment provision of the contract is not a liquidated damages clause; (2) Defendant did not terminate the agreement; and (3) the jury did not specifically find that Defendant terminated the agreement.

Defendant’s first argument is premised on the assertion that a breach of contract and termination of contract cannot occur simultaneously. Defendant argues that a breach of contract and a termination of contract are distinct legal events. Defendant provides no authority for this assertion. The motion cannot be granted on this basis.

            Defendant next argues that there is insufficient evidence to find Defendant terminated the agreement. Defendant asserts that there was no termination because Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s relationship was continuous. At trial, Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendant had siphoned almost 90% of Plaintiff’s sales volume before expiration of the contract. The jury was persuaded by the evidence and found Defendant’s conduct breached the agreement and effectively terminated it. This, combined with evidence that Defendant’s intent was to end the relationship with Plaintiffs, is sufficient to support the verdict.

            Defendant also contends that the jury did not find termination because there was not an explicit termination question on the verdict form. Defendant has not shown it objected to the verdict form on this ground prior to the jury’s discharge. Defendant has waived this argument. (See Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., Inc. (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, 131.)

            Defendant’s motion is DENIED.