What is a Motion for a Directed Verdict?

Useful Resources for Motion for a Directed Verdict

Recent Rulings on Motion for a Directed Verdict

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

AMERICAN HOME ALARMS, INC VS. AMERICA'S SECURITY

At the close of plaintiff’s case, the court granted a motion by the individual defendants for directed verdict as to all causes of action as to the individual defendants in their individual capacities. At that time, the court also granted the corporate defendant America Security’s motion for directed verdict and dismissed the fifth through seventh causes of action for express indemnity, negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

MARIAM MITOYAN VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

BENNIE BENTON III VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

(d) This section shall only apply if the defendant or cross-defendant has made a motion for summary judgment, judgment under Section 631.8, directed verdict, or nonsuit and the motion is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1038 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AFFINITO VS. AFFINITO

Every previous judge who has been assigned to this action has expressed serious reservations about plaintiffs’ ability to present a case that would survive a motion for nonsuit, or a motion for directed verdict, at trial. Thus, the first assigned judge denied plaintiffs’ application for a writ of attachment, finding that plaintiffs had failed to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. (See, Minute Order dated 4-30-18.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

TIERNAN VS. KALIN

"The burden on the plaintiff is similar to the standard used in determining motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, or summary judgment. [Citations omitted.]" (Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 907.) The plaintiff cannot rely only on the allegations of the complaint but must present evidence sufficient to demonstrate his probability of prevailing. (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010; Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

SIRISUP VS. MATSUNO

Plaintiff’s burden of demonstrating a probability of prevailing is subject to a standard similar to that used in deciding a motion for nonsuit, directed verdict, or summary judgment. (Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1570.) “In deciding the question of potential merit, the trial court considers the pleadings and evidentiary submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant (§ 425.16, subd.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

SIMMONDS VS. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 336 (affirming directed verdict on slander of title claim and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on negligence claim). Civ. Code § 2924(d), specifically provides that the mailing, publication, and delivery of notices as required herein, and the performance of the procedures set forth in this article, shall constitute privileged communications within Civ. Code § 47.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

WILLIAM DWIGHT TOUCHBERRY ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 250

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BRUZZO V. XXXXXXXXXXXX

The test is the same as that governing a motion for summary judgment, nonsuit, or directed verdict – that is, whether the plaintiff’s evidence, if credited, would be sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 714. Thus, the showing required “is not high.” Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Organization, 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 469. The “plaintiff needs to show only a minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability.” Id. (internal quote marks and citations omitted).

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

BRIAN RANGER VS ALAMITOS BAY YACHT CLUB

Nevertheless, “summary judgment or a directed verdict is mandated where the facts and the law will reasonably support only one conclusion.” Wilander, supra, at 356, 111 S.Ct., at 818; see also Chandris, 515 U.S., at 368–369, 115 S.Ct., at 2189–2190. Plaintiff relies on Freeze, supra, to support his contention that he need not be a seaman as defined by the Jones Act in order to be a seaman. Freeze does so hold. Freeze does not, however, abrogate the test detailed above.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LORETA S TUPARAN VS GOLDEN CROSS HEALTH CARE ET AL

App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

TRANSCONTINENTAL AIR LLC VS. HEITSHUSEN

The test is the same as that governing a motion for summary judgment, nonsuit, or directed verdict – that is, whether the plaintiff’s evidence, if credited, would be sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 714. Thus, the showing required “is not high.” Hecimovich v. Encinal School Parent Organization (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 450, 469. The “plaintiff needs to show only a minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability.” Id. (internal quote marks and citations omitted).

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

SILVA V. VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

At the demurrer stage of the pleadings, it is premature to compare the alleged safety disclosures in this case to the disclosures testified to and evaluated by the trial court which resulted in the directed verdict in Conn. THE PARTIES MAY JOIN THIS COURT CALENDAR REMOTELY UTILIZING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Join Zoom Meeting https://solano-courts-ca- gov.zoom.us/j/81803240604?

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

. [,] a motion for directed verdict, or their equivalents, as well as on a judgment entered on a verdict. A determination may be based on a failure of pleading or of proof as well as on the sustaining of the burden of proof.” (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 226 [citations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

. [,] a motion for directed verdict, or their equivalents, as well as on a judgment entered on a verdict. A determination may be based on a failure of pleading or of proof as well as on the sustaining of the burden of proof.” (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 226 [citations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NICOLE CAMPOS VS LAUSD

Ct. at 2738-41, involved an appeal by a petitioner school district of a directed verdict for the respondent United States Attorney General in his action alleging that petitioner had engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. International Brotherhood, 97 S.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ONESIMO BENITEZ HERNANDEZ ET AL VS THE KROGER CO ET AL

., summary judgment motion, nonsuit, directed verdict or motion under § 631.8), the cross-defendant may be entitled to recover a broad category of otherwise nonrecoverable costs.”]; Gonzales v. ABC Happy Realty (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 391, 392 [Section 1038 “directs a trial court to assess costs against a party who has brought a proceeding for indemnity or contribution without good faith or reasonable cause.”].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MORRIS V. CHO

[Citation.] “ ‘The trial judge's power to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical to his power to grant a directed verdict [citations]. The trial judge cannot reweigh the evidence [citation], or judge the credibility of witnesses. [Citation.] If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ENTERTAINMENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MAGNOLIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The trial court renders judgment notwithstanding the verdict when a motion for directed verdict should have been granted if made. (Code Civ. Proc. §629; Hansen v. Sunnyside Products, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 1497, 1510 [Rev. Den. 9/17/97]; Walton v. Magno (1994) 25 Cal. App .4th 1237, 1239–40.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ANDREW BURKOT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

(d) This section shall only apply if the defendant or cross-defendant has made a motion for summary judgment, judgment under Section 631.8, directed verdict, or nonsuit and the motion is granted. (CCP §1038.) “[T]he filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney fees as costs post trial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMBER GARCIA VS MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.