Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 19STCV27772, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27772    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51  

Date: 3/1/23 

Case #19STCV27772

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT  

& 

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT 

Jury Verdict: 12/5/22

Motion filed: 1/3/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Oganes Semirdzhyan (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Priscilla Stephanie Dominguez; and Maria Del Carmen Dominguez (collectively, “Defendants”)

NOTICE: ok   

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order setting aside the judgment entered on 12/5/22, on the jury’s special verdict, and to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict on issue of damages in favor of Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the issue of damages or additur.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff was injured when defendant Priscilla Stephanie Dominguez rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle with hers on 3/2/18. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered property damage to his vehicle and bodily injuries necessitating chiropractic treatments.

On 8/5/19, Plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se; and (3) Liability of Motor Vehicle Owner Pursuant to California Vehicle Code § 17150. On 9/17/19, Defendants filed their answer.

On 10/31/22, the jury trial commenced, with the jury returning its verdict as to the sole issue of Plaintiff’s damages on 11/4/22. The jury awarded Plaintiff $0 for past economic and non-economic damages. The judgment was entered on 12/5/22.

On 1/3/23, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). On 1/23/23, Defendants filed their opposition. On 1/30/23, Plaintiff filed his reply.

//

//

ANALYSIS 

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence—contradicted or uncontradicted—to support the jury's conclusion. (Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 770.)

“A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 656.) A new trial may be granted upon application of the party aggrieved if, inter alia, there are irregularities in court or jury proceedings, or insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and the substantial rights of that party are thereby materially affected. (Code Civ. Proc. § 657.)

Here, Plaintiff moves for a JNOV, or in the alternative, a new trial, on the sole issue of damages owed to him. The parties disagree as to whether Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by Defendants’ negligent conduct. Plaintiff argues that “Defendant admitted that she was negligent and a substantial factor in causing injuries to Plaintiff.” (Pl.’s Mot. 3:7–8.) In opposition, Defendants argue that they “only accepted liability for causing the accident. They did not acknowledge that the negligence caused Plaintiff to be physically harmed.” (Defs.’ Opp. 3:28–4:1.) Plaintiff argues in reply that the omission of a question included on the parties’ joint verdict form, which asked whether Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor to causing Plaintiff’s harm, from the final special verdict form, shows that Defendants conceded the issue of causation. (Pl.’s Reply 2:6–16.)

Plaintiff further argues that the jury unlawfully failed to apply CACI Nos. 3900, 3901, 3902, 3903A, and 3905A in returning their verdict, and that “the undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff … was harmed by Defendant’s negligence and incurred at least $3,355.00 (the 20 visits, allowed by Defendant’s own expert Dr. Stahl, x $167.75 per visit) for past medical expenses.” (Pl.’s Mot. 4:7–9.) Defendants argue in opposition that their expert never testified that he believed P’s injury to have resulted from the accident, nor did he testify that at least 20 treatments were necessary to treat Plaintiff’s injuries. (Defs.’ Opp. 5:5–8.) The Court notes that the parties did not utilize a court reporter at trial, and therefore there is no record for the Court’s review.

Based on the foregoing, and the jury’s finding that Plaintiff was not a credible witness, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown sufficient justification to warrant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial. Accordingly, the motion is denied in full.

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.