Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 22CHCV00394, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00394    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51  

Date: 3/7/23 

Case #22CHCV00394

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT  

Jury Verdict: 1/18/23

Motion filed: 2/2/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant A–Z Communications, Inc.¿(“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Napa Industries, LLC (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: ok   

RELIEF REQUESTED: A judgment notwithstanding the jury’s 1/18/23 verdict in favor of Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s motion is denied.

BACKGROUND 

This is an unlawful detainer action in which Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendant overdue rent totaling $37,500.00, plus fees. (Compl. ¶ 19.) On 6/1/22, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant. On 9/29/22, Defendant filed its answer.

On 1/9/23, the jury trial commenced, and on 1/12/23, the jury returned its verdict for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $194,375. The judgment was entered on 1/18/23.

On 2/2/23, Defendant filed the instant motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). On 2/7/23, Plaintiff filed its opposition. No reply has been filed to date.

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.)

Here, in moving for a JNOV, Defendant argues that the Court erred in denying its oral motion for directed verdict because Plaintiff’s three-day notice to Defendant to quit or pay rent was legally deficient under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2). The statute requires such a notice to be “in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment (provided that, if the address does not allow for personal delivery, then it shall be conclusively presumed that upon the mailing of any rent or notice to the owner by the tenant to the name and address provided, the notice or rent is deemed received by the owner on the date posted, if the tenant can show proof of mailing to the name and address provided by the owner), or the number of an account in a financial institution into which the rental payment may be made, and the name and street address of the institution (provided that the institution is located within five miles of the rental property), or if an electronic funds transfer procedure has been previously established, that payment may be made pursuant to that procedure, or possession of the property, shall have been served upon the tenant and if there is a subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also upon the subtenant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(2).)

Defendant argues that the notice did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2) because it did not state the address of the person to whom the overdue rent payment was to be paid. (Def.’s Mot. 3:7–14.) Defendant argues that the Court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict and ruling that the jury could find that the notice complied with the statute. (Id. at 3:20–23.) Plaintiff argues in opposition that at trial, the jury heard evidence to support its determination that the three-day notice was sufficiently clear to apprise Defendant as to whom and where to make its overdue payment. (Pl.’s Opp. 1:13–26.)

The Court also notes that at trial, the jury found that Plaintiff established that Defendant was aware of where, how, and to whom to make rental payments based on prior dealings between the parties. At trial, the jury heard evidence of the rental property having highly secure fencing surrounding this commercial property as its primary use is cultivation, manufacture and/or sales of marijuana making accesses almost impossible.  Moreover, the jury heard testimony that defendant was rarely on site.  In fact, most of the parties’ meetings were off-site.  Supporting this, the Jury also heard that Defendant was rarely on site as he had many other business interests requiring his attention away from the location.  Based on his testimony, Defendant’s agent made a poor witness on his own behalf, and was ultimately not credible.

Based on the foregoing, and the jury’s finding that Plaintiff’s written three-day notice was proper, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown sufficient justification to warrant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Accordingly, the motion is denied in full.

CONCLUSION 

Defendant’s motion is denied.