Judge: Raul A. Sahagun, Case: VC065792, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: VC065792 Hearing Date: August 18, 2022 Dept: SED
KOHANBASH v.
SPECIALTY BAKING, INC.
CASE NO.: VC065792
HEARING: 08/18/22
TENTATIVE ORDER
I.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
FARZAD KOHANBASH’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment is CONTINUED to Tuesday,
August 23, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-D. The Court concurrently sets its Motion for
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict for hearing on Tuesday, August 23, 2022
at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-D.
II.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
FARZAD KOHANBASH’s Motion for New Trial is CONTINUED to Tuesday,
August 23, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-D.
Moving Party to give Notice.
Motion to Vacate Judgment
Kohanbash moves to vacate the Judgment entered on June 22,
2022 on the basis that the Judgment is incorrect based on this Court’s
procedurally improper consideration of Specialty Baking, Inc.’s JNOV Motion
while trial was still (then) pending on a number of cross-claims.
“A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the
court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion by the party
aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and
different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially
affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a
different judgment: (1) Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision,
not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the
judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and
corrected. (2) A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the
special verdict.” (CCP §663.)
“A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict shall be
made within the period specified by Section 659… in respect of the filing and
serving of notice of intention to move for a new trial. (CCP §629.) A motion
for new trial may be brought before a judgment is entered, but only “[a]fter the
decision is rendered….” (CCP §659(a)(1).) “Case law has long held that, where
some issues are to be tried by a jury and others by the court, new trial
proceedings are premature when instituted after a verdict has been rendered but
before a determination of all issues in a case.” (Cobb v. Univ. of So.
California (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143-1144.) “The reason for the rule
is that there is no completed ‘trial and decision’ (CCP §656) and there is no
‘aggrieved party’ (CCP §657) until such time as there has been a completed
trial and decision, at which time nothing remains to be done except to enter
judgment in favor of the prevailing party. (City of Los Angeles (1946)
28 Cal.2d 509, 512.) “The statutory scheme on new trials makes it quite evident
that [motion for] new trial is not proper until the action has been prosecuted
to a point where it can be said to be complete.” (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v.
Sup. Ct. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 458.) “For purposes of section 659 a ‘trial’
is complete when all the issues have been determined… as to the ‘party
aggrieved’ in question.” Id. at 460.) The California Rules of Court are
the same; “Any motion for a new trial following a bifurcated trial must be made
after all the of the issues are tried….” (CRC Rule 3.1591(c).)
On October 1, 2021, a four-day jury trial commenced with
respect to causes of action for fraud and misrepresentation. The jury rendered
its verdict on October 5, 2021. On November 30, 2021, Specialty Baking moved
for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or in the alternative, for New Trial.
On January 11, 2022, this Court granted in part Specialty Baking’s Motion for
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and denied the alternative Motion for New
Trial. Judgment was entered on June 22, 2022. At the time Specialty Baking’s
JNOV/New Trial Motion was filed, the action was not yet complete—Dan Samarin
and Specialty Baking had outstanding cross-claims for declaratory relief that
had yet to be determined. Although Samarin and Specialty Baking’s cross-claims
were ultimately later dismissed, it is undisputed that they were still pending
at the time the Court heard and adjudicated Specialty Baking’s JNOV/New Trial
Motion.
Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant the Motion to Vacate
the Judgment because the Court made an error of law by reaching the merits of
Specialty Baking’s JNOV/New Trial Motion before all of the issues in this
action were tried.
However, all parties should take Notice that the Court, on
its own Motion, is inclined to enter a different judgment notwithstanding the
verdict on the following grounds:
·
Drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs,
the Court finds that Plaintiffs owe Specialty $1,850.00 in unpaid holdover
damages. The lease rent was $1,850.00 per month. The total rent owed from June
2017 to February 2019 was $38,850.00, and Plaintiffs only paid $37,000.00.
·
The jury’s award of $0 in holdover damages was
not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, the Court is
inclined to grant the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the
issue of holdover damages.
·
The jury’s finding that Specialty failed to
return any of the security deposit was not supported by substantial evidence in
the record. The security deposit was refunded to Wholesome. Therefore, the
Court is inclined to grant the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
on the issue of the return of the security deposit.
(See CCP §629(a).)
Any party may serve and file a brief of no more than 5
pages, excluding declarations and other evidence, limited to addressing the
issues raised by the Court’s own Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the
Verdict by no later than August 22, 2022.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
FARZAD KOHANBASH’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment is CONTINUED to August 23,
2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-D to be heard in conjunction with the Court’s own
Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
Motion for New Trial
The Motion for New Trial is CONTINUED to be heard in
conjunction with the Court’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. No further briefing on this Motion is
necessary.