Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: BC668642, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC668642 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 3/28/23
Case #BC668642
MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL
Notice of Intention filed on 2/8/23. Memorandum filed on 2/28/23.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata and
Maria Del Rosario Arroyo
RESPONDING PARTY # 1: Defendant Lundgren Management
RESPONDING PARTY # 2: Defendant Newhall School District
NOTICE: ok
(6)
Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and other decisions, and
the verdict and other decisions are/were against law (CCP §657(6)); (7) Errors
in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by Plaintiffs (CCP §657(7)).
RULING: The motion is denied.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arose from an incident that occurred on July
13, 2016, at the Old Orchard Elementary School in Valencia, California within
the Defendant Newhall Unified School District (“the District”). Plaintiffs Jose
De Jesus Diaz Mata and Maria Del Rosario Arroyo, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
alleged that Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata was in the process of dismantling,
removing, and/or transporting a modular classroom at Old Orchard Elementary
School when the walls and/or roof collapsed onto him. Plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants negligently and carelessly controlled, inspected, and operated
the project and/or created a dangerous condition—specifically, the modular
classroom and surrounding areas; failed to protect/guard against or warn of the
dangerous condition; failed to ensure the safety of Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata;
and/or failed to act with reasonable care—all of which Plaintiffs alleged
caused the modular classroom to collapse onto Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Impact Construction
Services, Inc. (“Impact Construction” or “Impact”) agreed to purchase four
modular classroom units and one modular restroom unit from the District. Impact
Construction then subcontracted with Defendant Hector Lopez dba HN Construction
Services (“HN Construction”), a licensed contractor, to remove the modular
classrooms. HN Construction employed Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata when he was
allegedly injured by the modular classroom, and Maria Del Rosario Arroyo claimed
loss of consortium as Jose De Jesus Diaz Mata’s spouse.
On July 11, 2022, the Court granted HN Construction’s
motion for summary judgment based on the “Exclusive Remedy of Worker’s
Compensation Doctrine.” Impact Construction settled with Plaintiffs before
trial. The action went to trial against
the District and Lundgren Management Corporation (“Lundgren”).
After trial, the jury found no fault on the part of the
District and Lundgren and judgment was entered in their favor on January 24,
2023. Now, Plaintiff moves for an order
vacating the verdict rendered January 23, 2023 and vacating the judgment
entered on January 24, 2023 in favor of the District and Lundgren and granting
a new trial on the following grounds: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of
the Court, jury and adverse party, and any and all orders of the Court and
abuses of discretion by which either party and Plaintiffs were prevented from
having a fair trial (CCP §657(1)); (2) Misconduct of the jury (CCP §657(2));
(3) Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded
against (CCP §657(3)); (4) Newly discovered evidence, material for Plaintiffs,
which Plaintiffs could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and
produced at the trial (CCP §657(4)); (5) Inadequate damages (CCP §657(5)); (6)
Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and other decisions, and
the verdict and other decisions are/were against law (CCP §657(6)); (7) Errors
in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by Plaintiffs (CCP §657(7)). The District and Lundgren have opposed the
motion. Plaintiffs have filed a reply to
the oppositions.
ANALYSIS
Lundgren’s objections to portions of the declaration of
Manuel D. Balam and exhibits in support of the motion are overruled.
In violation of CRC 3.1113(f), Plaintiffs have failed to
include a table of contents and a table of authorities with their 13-page memorandum
of points and authorities. Additionally,
the notice of motion sets forth 7 grounds (CCP 657(1)-(7)) on which a new trial
is sought. (See Notice of
Intention to Move for New Trial filed 2/8/23, p.1:23-p.2:14); CCP 659(a). However, the memorandum of points and
authorities filed in support of the motion only addresses 3 of the 7 grounds
set forth in the notice (i.e., CCP 657(1), 657(6) and 657(7)). (See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points
& Authorities, generally). Despite the
foregoing, Plaintiffs’ memorandum and the arguments therein were considered on
the merits.
A motion for new trial may only be granted when the
moving party has suffered prejudicial error.
See Sherman (1998)
67 CA4th 1152, 1160-1161; Stewart (1945) 68 CA2d 122, 125; CCP
657.
Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish
that they are entitled to a new trial based on irregularity in the proceedings
of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of
discretion by which Plaintiffs were prevented from having a fair trial. CCP 657(1);
CCP 658. Additionally, the Court
finds that the rulings on motions in limine addressed in the motion were fairly
and properly made. Similarly, the Court
finds that the examination of Margaret Lundgren and the introduction of related
documentary evidence at trial was properly limited. The Court also finds no errors were committed
with regard to the evidence the Court permitted to be presented to the jury,
jury instructions and/or verdict forms.
Plaintiffs have also failed to provide a sufficient
record or sufficient evidence establish that there was insufficient evidence to
justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision was against
law. CCP 657(6). To the contrary, the Court finds sufficient
evidence was presented at trial to support the verdict. Nor have Plaintiffs established that there
was an error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by Plaintiffs which
warrants a new trial. CCP 657(7). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion and as
noted above, the jury instructions were proper as were the other decisions and
rulings challenged in the motion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied.