What is a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Recent Rulings on Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

WILKIE VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED without prejudice to the Court hearing a Motion for Reconsideration currently calendared. Judgment was entered as a result of a summary judgment motion by defense. A Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is not appropriate. Plaintiff is not seeking and cannot seek a "judgment" entered. Plaintiff is asking to have judgment reconsidered.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MORRIS V. CHO

Motion No. 2: Plaintiff’s (Maria Morris) Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (Motion), filed on 7-31-20 under ROA No. 328, is DENIED.

  • Hearing

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

Defendant filed the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial on September 01, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to both motions on September 14, 2020, and Defendant filed a reply to both motions on September 21, 2020. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendant moves for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial as to the breach of contract cause of action.

  • Hearing

SISLIN V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC.

Before the Court this day is a motion for new trial, and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based on the same argument, to wit: even though plaintiff had “some” evidence of this wobbly steering issue, the issue was so elusive that as a matter of law it could not rise to the level of a cognizable defect. Plaintiff opposes the motions, pointing out that defendant’s arguments are really just sour grapes that the jury believed plaintiff and his father (and the video) more than Toyota employees.

  • Hearing

CHAPTER ONE LAND TRUST VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

The Kachlon Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and concluded that “Best Alliance's recording of the notice of default was privileged, that the evidence failed to demonstrate Best Alliance acted with malice, and that therefore Best Alliance was immune from the Markowitzes' slander of title and negligence claims.” (Kachlon, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at 333.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

GERONIMO SALGADO ET AL VS RAQUEL V SALGADO ET AL

Costa Victoria Healthcare, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1034, was an appeal after trial of an elder neglect case, in which the jury had found for the plaintiff, but the trial judge had granted a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the elder abuse cause of action, finding insufficient evidence of recklessness to support the claim. The Court of appeal affirmed that ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANNETTE RUBIN V. FREDERICK A. ASPENLIETER, ET AL.

The Court denied Rubin’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and granted Aspen’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and penalty interest, pursuant to Civil Code section 8800, awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $40,504.07, and penalty interest in the amount of $28,165.80. As a result, the total amount Rubin was obligated to pay to Aspen was $99,285.19. Rubin appealed the judgment against her, including the award of attorneys’ fees and penalty interest.

  • Hearing

ANA FLORES VS CEDRIC WHITE ET AL

Defendant asserts that “during trial, Defendant made several motions to establish the meritless nature of this case” by its filing of the Motion for Nonsuit and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict “on the basis that the Plaintiff had not provided sufficient facts to seek punitive damages against White.” (Id. at pp. 5:28-6:3.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANA FLORES VS CEDRIC WHITE ET AL

Defendant asserts that “during trial, Defendant made several motions to establish the meritless nature of this case” by its filing of the Motion for Nonsuit and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict “on the basis that the Plaintiff had not provided sufficient facts to seek punitive damages against White.” (Id. at pp. 5:28-6:3.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RUVOLO V. WALMART CORPORATION

As to Code of Civil Procedure section 391, subdivision (b)(3), the Motion states, “Plaintiff continues to harass Walmart and delay the completion of the matter by filing motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial.” (Motion: 6:18-19.) “When considering a motion to declare a litigant vexatious, the court must weigh the evidence to decide whether the litigant is vexatious based on the statutory criteria and whether the litigant has a reasonable probability of prevailing. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS JOE TEH CHUANG ET AL

Defendant United Merchant Services, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.

  • Hearing

CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS JOE TEH CHUANG ET AL

Defendant United Merchant Services, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.

  • Hearing

GEORG LINGENBRINK VS. STEPHEN C GAMES

Background The Court previously denied Grande's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") and denied its motion for new trial. ROA 356. In that order, the Court noted that Grande failed to file a notice of intent when it moved for new trial, and that the notice of intent requirement is jurisdictional. Id. Grande moves, for a second time, for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure sections 657 and 659.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GEORG LINGENBRINK VS. STEPHEN C GAMES

Background The Court previously denied Grande's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") and denied its motion for new trial. ROA 356. In that order, the Court noted that Grande failed to file a notice of intent when it moved for new trial, and that the notice of intent requirement is jurisdictional. Id. Grande moves, for a second time, for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure sections 657 and 659.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HARRIS VS ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK

s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict ("JNOV") is DENIED. A motion for JNOV, like motions for directed verdict or nonsuit, is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. (Moore v. San Francisco (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 728.) It is available only after a jury trial and must be granted if a motion for directed verdict should have been granted had it been made. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 629.) Unlike a motion for new trial, the court cannot reweigh the evidence in a motion for JNOV.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NICK KRUTHANOOCH VS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

As Adventists argues, however, Plaintiff’s main argument is now moot given that the court granted GAMC’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict—i.e., GAMC is now also a prevailing defendant. The court, therefore, denies the motion on this ground. Plaintiff further argues that: · Filing and motion fees: Adventist should not be allowed to recover filing fees for a motion for summary judgment ($513.75) and a motion to bifurcate ($60) because Adventist lost those motions.

  • Hearing

JOHN F JARECKI JR AND MARIA JARECKI TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN AND MARIA JARECKI TRUST DATED JULY 8 1998 VS. EDWARD ZITTER AND JUDITH ZITTER CO-TRUSTEES OF THE ZITTER FAMILY TRUST DATES AUGUST 9 2004

Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial – Prejudgment Interest If the court grants a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on nuisance, this motion is moot; if not, this motion is denied as there was no error of law. Civil Code §3291 does not apply because the nuisance caused diminution damages to property. The emotional distress damages are incidental. The damages were not capable of reasonable ascertainment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MASON MCCONN VS UPS CARTAGE SERVICES INC ET AL

By spending a significant amount of time reiterating the jury’s findings at trial and the Court’s findings at the hearing on Plaintiff’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, Defendants seek to have this Court engage in the same “post hoc reasoning” the Court in Christianburg explicitly warned against.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLARKE VS INFUSION CHURCH

Because there was nothing more than a wrongful termination here, punitive damages were not warranted, and the trial court should have granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of punitive damages." Id. at 717. In this action, punitive damages are alleged within the first cause of action for wrongful termination. However, specific facts are not alleged showing how the termination was "despicable," and also oppressive, fraudulent or malicious.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MASON MCCONN VS UPS CARTAGE SERVICES INC ET AL

By spending a significant amount of time reiterating the jury’s findings at trial and the Court’s findings at the hearing on Plaintiff’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, Defendants seek to have this Court engage in the same “post hoc reasoning” the Court in Christianburg explicitly warned against.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

JNOV The request for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict is stayed pending issuance of remittitur. Ford requests judgment nothwithstanding the verdict as to the civil penalty contained in the judgment on verdict entered on February 28, 2020. On May 6, 2020, Ford filed a notice of appeal of the same judgment. The perfecting of an appeal automatically stays proceedings in the trial court on matters embraced in or affected by the judgment on appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. § 916.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

JNOV The request for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict is stayed pending issuance of remittitur. Ford requests judgment nothwithstanding the verdict as to the civil penalty contained in the judgment on verdict entered on February 28, 2020. On May 6, 2020, Ford filed a notice of appeal of the same judgment. The perfecting of an appeal automatically stays proceedings in the trial court on matters embraced in or affected by the judgment on appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. § 916.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

JNOV The request for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict is stayed pending issuance of remittitur. Ford requests judgment nothwithstanding the verdict as to the civil penalty contained in the judgment on verdict entered on February 28, 2020. On May 6, 2020, Ford filed a notice of appeal of the same judgment. The perfecting of an appeal automatically stays proceedings in the trial court on matters embraced in or affected by the judgment on appeal. (Code Civ. Proc. § 916.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU VS NINA C MONTOYA

In assessing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) the trial judge cannot weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.) “If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID J. DOVICHI VS. JAMES V. DE LA VERGNE

Here, as similarly explained to the Parties in conjunction with Defendant McCartney's prior motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the clear and unambiguous language of the statute requires that the motion be filed within 15 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court. In this case, 15 days after the mailing of the notice results in a filing deadline of March 31, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.