Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV35354, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV35354    Hearing Date: March 14, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 14, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for New Trial

Moving Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Plaintiff Vincent Albano

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 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 16, 2020, Plaintiff Vincent Albano sued the City of Los Angeles, asserting causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a police officer. Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against him because of his disability.

Following trial, the jury found in favor of Defendant on the cause of action for failure to accommodate and in favor of Plaintiff on the cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process. The jury awarded Plaintiff $700,000.00 in past non-economic damages and $300,000.00 in future non-economic damages.

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.)

            Defendant moves for a new trial on the ground that the jury awarded excessive damages. Defendant asserts that the evidence at trial established that Defendant consistently accommodated Plaintiff’s disability and consistently engaged in the interactive process with Plaintiff over Plaintiff’s 14-year career with the City. In opposition, Plaintiff contends the evidence at trial established Defendant assigned Plaintiff to a position that violated his work restrictions when his previous position was eliminated and Defendant did not engage in the interactive process to accommodate his disability before, during, or after his position was changed. This is sufficient to support the jury’s award of damages for failure to engage in the interactive process.

            Defendant’s motion is DENIED.