Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV39485, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39485    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 11, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for New Trial

Moving Party: Plaintiff Walther Medina

Responding Party: Defendants Anthony Martinez and Montebello Unified School District

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 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, oppositions, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff Walther Medina filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendants Montebello Unified School District (“MUSD”) and Anthony Martinez, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Ralph Act; (2) sexual battery; (3) gender violence; (4) violation of Unruh; (5) violation of Bane Act; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligence; and (8) violation of Education Code.

Plaintiff alleges that Martinez, MUSD Superintendent, sexually assaulted Plaintiff and sought a sexual relationship with Plaintiff in exchange for money and education through MUSD. In the SAC, Plaintiff alleges Martinez was also the Chief of Police of the school district.

On August 25, 2023, Martinez filed a cross-complaint against MUSD for indemnity.

Following trial, the jury found in favor of Defendants on all causes of action.

ANALYSIS

“The principal statutory authority for new trial motions is CCP § 657. “The right to a new trial is purely statutory, and a motion for a new trial can be granted only on one of the grounds enumerated in the statute.” (Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162, 166.)  The grounds enumerated in CCP § 657 include:

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.

5. Excessive or inadequate damages.

6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law.

7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application.

(CCP § 657.)

Plaintiff moves for new trial on the grounds that the Court erroneously excluded evidence at trial and erroneously disposed of certain claims on demurrer and summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should have admitted audio recordings of Defendant Martinez purportedly admitting to assaulting Plaintiff. The Court devoted considerable time to this issue before and during trial, and crafted an order based on applicable statutory and case law. Plaintiff provides no authority or analysis discussing why the Court’s ruling at trial was erroneous.

Similarly, Plaintiff provides no authority or analysis discussing the Court’s ruling on the demurrers and motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff simply asks the Court to change its rulings, without explaining why Plaintiff believes the Court erred.

Plaintiff’s motion for new trial is DENIED.