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

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

    Sep 09, 2020

  • 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

    Sep 04, 2020

  • 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

    Aug 24, 2020

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

    Aug 17, 2020

  • 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

    Aug 17, 2020

  • 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

    Aug 07, 2020

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

    Aug 03, 2020

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

    Aug 03, 2020

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

    Jul 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 29, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 23, 2020

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

    Jul 23, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 22, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 22, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 22, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 15, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 15, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 13, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

F&R REAL ESTATE INC VS PANCHO VILLA 2 LLC

The Court denied plaintiff's motion for new trial and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on May 26, 2020. Defendant timely filed its motion for attorney fees. Defendant seeks attorneys' fees and costs under Civil Code sections 1717, 1021, 1032, 1033.5 and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702 for fees of $306,696.00 and costs of $10,905.53, plus fees for preparing the anticipated reply in response to plaintiff's opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Unlawful Detainer

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

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 gather your results.