“[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.)