Judge: Richard J. Burdge, Case: BC65080, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC65080    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 3

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Plaintiffs Mary Taferner, filed a notice of intention to file a new trial motion on July 15, 2022, and filed a motion for a new trial and memorandum in support of the motion on July 22, 2022 seeking a new trial on the court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment.  The judgment and notice of entry of judgment were filed on August 2, 2022. The court finds the notice of intention for new trial and the motion for new trial to be timely filed.

Plaintiffs move for new trial on the following grounds:  (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of, or abuse of discretion by the Court (Code of Civil Procedure §657(1)); (2) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against (Code of Civil Procedure §657(3)); Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision or the decision is against law (Code of Civil Procedure §657(6)); and (4) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the moving party (Code of Civil Procedure §657(7).^[1]    In particular, Plaintiff claims 1.) that the courts sustaining objections to the evidence submitted by Plaintiff deprived her of a fair trial.  (Mot. 2:1-14.)  2.) the court’s ruling on objections after oral argument and as part of the final ruling on the motion, was an abuse of discretion.  

Plaintiff filed a memorandum, a Declaration of Jill S. David, a request for judicial notice[2] and a reply memorandum in support of the motion.   Defendants Tommy DeSantis and Cheryl DeSantis filed an opposition to the motion.  The court has reviewed all the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion. 

After having considered the parties’ briefs and the trial proceedings, the court concludes that there is no good cause for a new trial for the reasons stated below.

A.        Standards for a New Trial Motion

California permits motions for new trial in very limited circumstances. As set forth in Article VI, Section 13, of the California Constitution, “[n]o judgement shall be set aside, or new trial granted … unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Case law holds that “[a] miscarriage of justice … occurs … when it appears reasonably probable that were it not for the error a result more favorable to the appellant could have been obtained.” (Candelaria v. Avitia (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1436, 1444  (quoting Williams v. Lambert (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 115, 126).) “A motion for new trial is appropriate following an order granting summary judgment.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 858.) “The new trial motion may seek reversal of the summary judgment on ‘any available statutory ground for a new trial.’” (Wall St. Network, Ltd. V. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1176.)  Prejudice is not presumed; the burden is on the movant to show its existence. (Id.) “If it clearly appears that the error could not have affected the result of the trial, the court is bound to deny the motion.” (Bristow v. Ferguson (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 823, 836.) Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to meet this burden.

B.        The timing of the rulings on the evidentiary objections

Plaintiff argues that the court’s tentative ruling before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment indicated that “noted none for evidentiary objections.”  (Mot. 2:5.)  The same day as the oral argument, the court issued its final ruling submitted matter after the hearing, which was contained in the Minute Order filed April 13, 2022.  Plaintiff contends that making those written rulings on the evidentiary objections after oral argument was an abuse of discretion and deprived her of a right to a fair trial.  (Mot. 2:15-22.)  The cases Plaintiff cites do stand for the proposition that evidentiary objections are reviewed for abuse of discretion but neither hold that written rulings not provided before oral argument are an abuse of discretion.  (See Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1169 and Landale-Cameron Court, Inc. v. Ahonen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1407.)

In addition, Plaintiff argues that “It is unknown to Plaintiff why or whether Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections were timely filed. (See David Decl., Ex. “5”, Tentative, p. 2.) But they were specifically deemed not admitted in the tentative. (Id.) Defendants did not request rulings on their late admissions.” (Mot. 9:12-16.)  Plaintiff further argues that including the rulings in the final order “damaged the Plaintiff’s ability to preserve the record for an appeal.”  (Mot. 9:26-27.)

Those arguments are based substantially on a misunderstanding of the record.  The written objections by Defendants were served and filed with the reply on April 8, 2022 as reflected in the court’s docket.  The proof of service indicates they were electronically served on Plaintiff’s counsel on that date.  Thus, the objection should not have been a surprise to Plaintiff.  The ruling contained written rulings on those objections at the time of the ruling on the motion.  All Plaintiff’s appeal rights have not been compromised, as there are written rulings that she can challenge on appeal, if appropriate.

While the court’s tentative ruling mistakenly said there were no objections, it was a tentative ruling.  The court is not required to prepare a written tentative prior to oral argument, but it did prepare a multiple-paged single space ruling for the parties’ information prior to oral argument.  After oral argument, the court took the motion under submission and corrected some erroneous language in the tentative.  It ruled on the objections to evidence, and it revised the language regarding “flipping” housed that Plaintiff criticizes in Part III.A of the motion.  She also mischaracterizes the courts attempted summary of evidence presented by the parties as “findings.”  (See Mot. 4:5-6.)  She then tries to apply those findings to interpret other information submitted by the parties.  (Id.)

While Plaintiff devotes much of the motion for new trial to rearguing the motion that was decided against her.  Other than arguing that she was not given an opportunity to argue against the evidentiary rulings, her moving papers do not set forth any legal basis for finding that the rulings were improper.  In her reply, she attaches Exhibit A containing her arguments on admissibility, but that “argument” should not have been included only in a reply for it to be considered, as it does not give Defendant any opportunity to respond. 

Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is denied.

Dated:   October 4, 2022.                                             __________________________

Hon. Richard J. Burdge, Jr.