Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2020-00046237-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 03, 2024

01/05/2024  02:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00046237-CU-BC-NC NEWEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. VS. CITY OF CARLSBAD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for New Trial, 10/27/2023

Plaintiff NEWest Construction Company, Inc.'s motion for new trial (ROA # 216) is denied.

The court is not persuaded that plaintiff has presented a valid basis for a new trial. The court is not persuaded that there was an irregularity in the proceedings of the court (CCP § 657(1)), jury misconduct (CCP § 657(2)), accident or surprise (CCP § 657(3)), newly discovered evidence (CCP § 657(4)) or inadequate/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 was an error in law (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 an error occurred, the court is not persuaded that the error 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 weighing the evidence, the court is not persuaded that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict.

Therefore, plaintiff's motion for a new trial is denied.

This minute order constitutes the court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 2:30 p.m. on January 5, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 5, 2024. 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

3070164