“[A]fter all parties have completed the presentation of all of their evidence in a trial by jury, any party may, without waiving his or her right to trial by jury in the event the motion is not granted, move for an order directing entry of a verdict in its favor.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 630(a).) A motion for a directed verdict is granted if there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the claim or defense of the party opposing the motion. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 630(b).)
“Typically, if a defendant believes that the plaintiff has not presented substantial evidence to establish a cause of action, the defendant may move for a nonsuit if the case has not yet been submitted to the jury, a directed verdict if the case is about to be submitted, or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (jnov) following an unfavorable jury verdict. While made at different times, the three motions are analytically the same and governed by the same rules. The function of these motions is to prevent the moving defendant from the necessity of undergoing any further exposure to legal liability when there is insufficient evidence for an adverse verdict. Put another way, the purpose of motions for nonsuit, directed verdicts and jnovs is to allow a party to prevail as a matter of law where the relevant evidence is already in. And naturally, given the constitutional right to jury trial and a policy of judicial economy against willy-nilly disregarding juries’ hard work (even, in the case of a motion for nonsuit, the work of the jury in listening to the case up to that point), the basic rules regarding these motions are predictably strict. Conflicts in the evidence are resolved against the moving defendant and in favor of the plaintiff; all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence are drawn against the moving defendant and in favor of the plaintiff.” (Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner’s Association v. Department of Veteran Affairs (Fountain Valley) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 743, 750-752.)
“The trial judge's power to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical to his power to grant a directed verdict. The trial judge cannot weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied. ‘A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of a jury may properly be granted 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; Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 877-878, 151 Cal.Rptr. 285, 587 P.2d 1098.)
A motion for directed verdict is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence; the court may not weigh the evidence. (Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 621, 629–30.) “In determining a motion [for directed verdict], the trial court has no power to weigh the evidence, and may not consider the credibility of witnesses. It may not grant a directed verdict where there is any substantial conflict in the evidence. A directed verdict may be granted only when, disregarding conflicting evidence, giving the evidence of the party against whom the motion is directed all the value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging every legitimate inference from such evidence in favor of that party, the court nonetheless determines there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the claim or defense of the party opposing the motion, or a verdict in favor of that party.” (Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 621, 629–30.)
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.)
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(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].)
Dec 10, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Dec 07, 2020
Burch
Contra Costa County, CA
"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.
Dec 03, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Dec 03, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Dec 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
Nov 12, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Nov 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Oct 29, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Oct 29, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Oct 26, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Oct 20, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Oct 15, 2020
Orange County, CA
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?
Oct 09, 2020
Solano County, CA
. [,] 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].)
Sep 30, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
. [,] 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].)
Sep 30, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 28, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
., 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.”].)
Sep 28, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
[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.]
Sep 25, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
Sep 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Sep 17, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.