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

ARSHI VS. HASHEMI

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jalil Arshi Ruling: The Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is GRANTED. Plaintiff filed no Opposition to the Motion. The court will enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff for sum of $72,305.24 for compensatory damages only. The court strikes the award for punitive damages. Sua Sponte Motion: “Although most JNOV motions are made by the losing party, the trial court has power to grant a JNOV on its own motion. [CCP § 629 (a)].” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Trials & Ev.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

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

DISCUSSION On May 18, 2020, Defendant McCartney filed her notice of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. By this motion, Defendant McCartney specifically requests the court enter judgment in her favor "notwithstanding the May 24, 2012 judgment in the jury's verdict in the liability phase of this protracted 10-year bifurcated trial as it relates to malicious prosecution of the prescriptive easement claim[.]" (Def. JNOV Mot. at p. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EUNICES ARGUETA VS WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES INC ET AL

“The trial judge’s power to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical to [her] 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

(Rule 8.108 provides limited exceptions to these filing requirements with respect to motions for new trial, motions to vacate judgment, motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and other specific circumstances not present here.) Here, Plaintiff served notice of entry of judgment on February 24, 2020. Since the Rules of Court specify the applicable time period for filing, the general filing provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) do not apply. (See Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FLEEMAN V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

. ¶ Accordingly, the trial court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” (Kephart v. Genuity, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 280, 297–298.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

RIESENMAN V. BASER

.,] § 655 et seq.) or a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 629.) The court also retains jurisdiction to consider and grant a motion to vacate a judgment and enter a different judgment for either of two reasons: an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or supported by the facts, or a judgment not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] §§ 663, 663a.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

RIESENMAN V. BASER

.,] § 655 et seq.) or a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 629.) The court also retains jurisdiction to consider and grant a motion to vacate a judgment and enter a different judgment for either of two reasons: an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or supported by the facts, or a judgment not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] §§ 663, 663a.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

JANESSA NORRIS ET AL VS GRIFFITH PARK DUDE RANCH & BATH

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND FOR NEW TRIAL Moving Party: “Plaintiff(S)” Responding Party: Defendant Griffith Park Dude Ranch and Bath House, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2020

GEORG LINGENBRINK VS. STEPHEN C GAMES

JNOV A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") must be granted "whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made." Code Civ. Proc., § 629. Granting a JNOV is only proper when "there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the verdict." Lysick v. Walcom (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 136, 145 (affirming order denying JNOV).

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PAASCH BUSINESS GROUP INC VS. PRECISION AIRPARTS SUPPORT SERVICES INC

., moves for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. The motion is opposed. The motion is denied. Substantial evidence supports the jury's findings. Many of defendant's arguments were considered and rejected by the court in its Order and Tentative Decision.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

PLAN B MGMT. VS DIVERSIFIED PANELS ET. AL.

Accordingly, the trial court properly granted ARCO's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on that claim unless we recognize a new cause of action for tortious breach of contract in violation of public policy. (Harris v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 70, 78-80.) Here, Plan B alleges that DPS was its fiduciary and its actions were intended to frustrate Plan B's economic and non-economic benefits. (See 1st Amended Complaint, ¶¶33, 34.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

PLAN B MGMT. VS DIVERSIFIED PANELS ET. AL.

Accordingly, the trial court properly granted ARCO's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on that claim unless we recognize a new cause of action for tortious breach of contract in violation of public policy. (Harris v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 70, 78-80.) Here, Plan B alleges that DPS was its fiduciary and its actions were intended to frustrate Plan B's economic and non-economic benefits. (See 1st Amended Complaint, ¶¶33, 34.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

PECK VS PECK

Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict "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 weigh 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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GLORIA GUZMAN VS HOOMAN ENTERPRISES INC

On January 6, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial. On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney’s fees of $698,505.20 and costs of $41,009.70. ANALYSIS: A. Legal Standard Attorneys’ fees are allowed as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WHITE, KIT VS CHING, M ROBERT, MD ET AL

The Court will hear from counsel on Defendants' motion to vacate Judgment and enter Judgment on periodic payments/motion for partial Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and Defendants' motion to tax costs. Counsel may appear by Court Call.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

SHUJUN QIU VS THREE RIVERS PROVIDER NETWORK INC

s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is DENIED. Defendant has not shown that the evidence received at trial is insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. CCP §629.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LINEA POLK VS DAVID GERRITY

In addition, plaintiffs have filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and defendant has filed a motion to strike or, in the alternative, to tax plaintiffs’ cost bill. ANALYSIS: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict Plaintiffs move for an order for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a remittitur reducing the jury’s award of $10,000.00 to defendant on the ground that there was no evidence to support defendant’s property damage claim.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

WHITE, KIT VS CHING, M ROBERT, MD ET AL

Defendants' motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict is denied as moot. On Defendants' motion for new trial, the motion is denied on the grounds that the Court finds there was no error in giving jury instruction CACI No. 518. Assuming arguendo that there was error, such error was harmless in that there was no resulting prejudice to the Defendants. Plaintiff shall prepare a form of Order. On Defendants' motion to tax costs, the memorandum of costs is not premature.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

ESPOSITO VS WESTFIELD CORPORATION

The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") or new trial, filed by plaintiffs Amel and Kaelah Esposito, is denied. Preliminary Matters Defendant's hearsay objections to the declarations of Garrett McLearen and Peter Canales are sustained. Additionally, defendant's speculation objections to the declaration of Peter Canales are sustained.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESPOSITO VS WESTFIELD CORPORATION

The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") or new trial, filed by plaintiffs Amel and Kaelah Esposito, is denied. Preliminary Matters Defendant's hearsay objections to the declarations of Garrett McLearen and Peter Canales are sustained. Additionally, defendant's speculation objections to the declaration of Peter Canales are sustained.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

In Sole, the court considered whether it was appropriate to have granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) as to Plaintiffs shareholders’ complaint seeking lost profits on the grounds that they were putative shareholders of the Plaintiff corporation. (Sole, supra 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 227-228.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

JAMES BULLER VS. HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The motion for new trial or, in the alternative, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, filed by plaintiff James Buller, is denied. Preliminary Matters Defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMAYA VS KELLY

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, ADDITUR OR ALTERNATIVELY, NEW TRIAL by plaintiff Cheryl Amaya is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ENCORE LEASING GROUP LLC VS. THE MAINE WOOD TREATERS INC

JNOV Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is denied. In essence, a motion for JNOV 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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THOMAS JAMES VS LEAVITT GROUP AGENCY OF SAN DIEGO INC

Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED. The Court grants Plaintiff's CCP 473 Motion and has considered the Oppositions. However, based on the briefing, the parties agree that the special verdict from the jury exceeded the damages calculation of expert Douglas Anderson. The Court orders that the judgment relating to the breach of contract cause of action is reduced to $1,112,952.80.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 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 gather your results.