The Court “shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict 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(a).)

Unlike the standards applicable to a Motion for New Trial, “‘[t]he purpose of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not to afford a review of the jury’s deliberation but to prevent a miscarriage of justice in those cases where the verdict rendered is without foundation.’” (Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1194 (citation omitted).)

A motion for JNOV challenges whether the opposing party’s evidence was sufficient to prove the claims or defenses asserted and embodied by the jury’s verdict. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.)

How to Structure the Motion

The party against whom a verdict has been rendered may move the court for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). (Code of Civ. Proc., § 629(a).)

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of defendant is proper only where no evidence of “sufficient substantiality” supports the verdict in plaintiff’s favor. This is determined by disregarding evidence on defendant’s behalf, giving plaintiff’s evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, and indulging in every legitimate inference that may be drawn from that evidence. (Reynolds v. Wilson (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 94, 99; see also Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110 (the purpose of such a motion is to challenge whether the opposing party’s evidence was sufficient to prove the claims or defenses asserted and embodied by the jury’s verdict).)

The Court’s Decision

“The trial court's discretion in granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is severely limited.” (Teitel v. First Los Angeles Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1593, 1603.)

The party in whose favor the verdict was rendered is “entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence and to have all conflicts in the evidence resolved in his favor.” (Castro v. State of California (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 503, 507.)

“A trial court is governed by well settled standards in determining whether to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). ‘The trial court’s power to grant a motion for JNOV is the same as its power to grant a directed verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., § 629.) The court must accept as true the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, disregarding all conflicting evidence and indulging in every legitimate inference that may be drawn in support of the judgment. The court may grant the motion only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict.’” (Jones & Matson v. Hall (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1596, 1607; see also Castro v. State of California (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 503, 507 (the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered is “entitled to the benefit of every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence and to have all conflicts in the evidence resolved in his favor”); Sweatman v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68 (“A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may 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 in support.”).) Substantial evidence is a quantum of evidence which is “enough to allow a reasonable jury to have reached the challenged result.” (College Hospital, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715.)

“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 reweigh 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.’” (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 226–227 (internal marks and citations omitted).)

The focus in determining whether substantial evidence supports the verdict “is on the quality, rather than the quantity, of the evidence. ‘Very little solid evidence may be “substantial,” while a lot of extremely weak evidence might be “insubstantial.”’ Inferences may constitute substantial evidence, but they must be the product of logic and reason. Speculation or conjecture alone is not substantial evidence.” (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 651.)

“The power of the court to rule on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict shall not extend beyond the last date upon which it has the power to rule on a motion for a new trial. If a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not determined before such date, the effect shall be a denial of such motion without further order of the court...” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 629.)

Directed Verdict or Nonsuit Not Required

“There is no requirement in the law to prevent a court from granting a motion for judgment NOV without having gone through a motion for directed verdict or nonsuit. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 629 as amended in 1963, the condition that a motion for directed verdict had to be first made before a judge could consider NOV was eliminated.” (Rollenhagen v. City of Orange (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 414, 417, (disapproved on other grounds in Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 711, 738); see also 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) § 438 (“The condition of a prior motion for directed verdict was therefore criticized as a useless and annoying formality [Citation] and was eliminated from C.C.P. 629 in 1963.”).)

Timeline

“A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict shall be made within the period specified by Section 659 for the filing and service of a notice of intention to move for a new trial.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 629(b).)

“While section 659 permits a party to file a notice of intention to move for new trial [and JNOV] before the entry of judgment, the statute clearly contemplates that a final determination of all the causes of action has been rendered, and a final judgment may timely be entered.” (Cobb v. Univ. of So. California (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143.) “For purposes of section 659 a ‘trial’ is complete when all the issues have been determined as to the ‘party aggrieved’ in question.” (Id.) In fact, “under Code of Civil Procedure, section 629, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict cannot even properly be made, until all the issues have been disposed of.” (Horton v. Jones (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 952, 955.)