Judge: William Y. Wood, Case: 37-2021-00040956-CU-OR-NC, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:William Y Wood

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00040956-CU-OR-NC EVANS VS MCKENDRY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations, 04/09/2024

Defendants Louisa Evans and Bryn Evans' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (ROA # 156) is denied.

Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections are sustained. ROA # 169.

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.

Unlike a motion for new trial, the trial judge cannot weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses on a JNOV motion. Hauter v. Zogarts, supra, 14 Cal.3d at 110. 'The trial court's discretion in granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is severely limited.' In re Coordinated Latex Glove Litigation (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 594 as modified on denial of reh'g (July 15, 2002).

The Court is not persuaded that the Defendants have satisfied these standards for granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict namely because evidence was presented at trial supporting the jury's verdict.

Therefore, the motion 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 1:30 p.m. on Friday, May 24, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of May 24, 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

3119883