Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2019-00014225-CU-FR-NC, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00014225-CU-FR-NC KNYSH VS COX [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial, 10/09/2023

Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Cross-defendants Michael Knysh and Osama Alkasabi's Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (ROA # 955 and 970) are denied.

In essence, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict '... is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict...' Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 703. This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may prevail 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 to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied.' Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110. The term 'substantial' should not be read as an invitation to reweigh evidence; rather, the 'substantial evidence' standard of review of Hauter requires the court's deference to the jury's evaluation of the evidence. See Wright v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 318, 343.

The court is not persuaded that the moving parties have satisfied these standards for entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

In addition, as to Mr. Alkasabi's motion (ROA # 955) only, as a separate and alternative basis for denying the motion, Mr. Alkasabi failed to submit a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion, as required by Rule 3.1113. As such, Mr. Alkasabi has failed to present a meaningful analysis of the arguments, facts and legal authorities upon which the motion is based. It is not the court's role to identify arguments and contentions that could have been, but were not, presented in a supporting memorandum of points and authorities.

Motions for New Trial Cross-defendants Michael Knysh and Osama Alkasabi's Motions for a New Trial (ROA # 953 and 971) are denied.

The court is not persuaded that the moving parties have established any valid basis for a new trial. The court is not persuaded that there was an irregularity in the proceedings warranting a new trial (CCP § 657(1)) or excessive damages (CCP § 657(5)). The court is further not persuaded that there was insufficient evidence to justify the decision (CCP § 657(6)) or that there has been an error in law Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3033510 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  KNYSH VS COX [IMAGED]  37-2019-00014225-CU-FR-NC warranting a new trial (CCP § 657(7)).

The California Constitution states that the court may not grant a new trial on account of 'any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' Assuming one or more errors occurred in this case, the court is not persuaded that the error(s) resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Code of Civil Procedure section 657 contains the following limitation on the court's authority to grant a new trial: 'A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.' After considering the entire record, and weighing the evidence, the court is not persuaded that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict.

Therefore, cross-defendants' motions for a new trial are denied.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, November 17, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of November 17, 2023. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3033510