Preview
McNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3480 BUSKIRK AVENUE, SUITE 250, PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523
TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330
om NY DH BF BW NY
a
FI
Superior Court of Calforni
County of San Francisegs
WILMA J. GRAY (State Bar No. 188386)
wilma,gray@mcnamaralaw.com f
IAZARIAN (State Bar No. 323748) _ JUN 7 9 2020
cyrus.nazarian@mcnamaralaw.com CLERK OF T COURT
MCNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BY: Byline SMe
BorGes & AMBACHER LLP C Deputy Cee
3480 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 250 en
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Telephone: (925) 939-5330
Facsimile: (925) 939-0203
Attorneys for Defendant
YOSHIO NAKASHIMA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ,
NINA RUSANOVSCHI, Case No. CGC19572476
Plaintiff, [EESRGEED) ORDER DENYING
| PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW
vs. | ‘TRIAL OR ADDITUR BASED ON
FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR PAIN
YOSHIO NAKASHIMA, and DOES 1 to AND SUFFERING
100,
Trial Date: 2/10/2020
Defendants: Action Filed: 1/2/2019
ke
|, remote video conference held by Judge John K. Stewart of Department 504 of the San Francisco | —
Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial or Additur came on regularly for hearing on June 5, 2020 by f
County Superior Court. (The court reporter appeared remotely to transcribed the hearing.) Plaintiff |,
appeared by her counsel, Walter H. Walker, III and Boris Efron and Defendant appeared by his
counsel, Wilma J. Gray. The court reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the
motion, and considered the oral arguments of counsel. Upon good cause appearing therefore, the |
Court orders as follows:
The motion for new trial or additur is DENIED on all grounds.
1. The Court cannot grant a motion for new trial based on inadequate damages pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 657, unless after weighing all the evidence, the Court is
convinced from the entire record including all reasonable inferences therefrom that the jury clearly
[PRORSSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR ADDITURATTORNEYS AT LAW
McNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP
3480 BUSKIRK AVENUE, SUITE 250, PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523
TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330
oe IN DH HW Fw WD
NbN MN NY NY NY NN NY ee Be ewe Be ewe ee ewe ew
oN DUP DB YOY F&F So we RIA AA Ro YH BS
should have reached a different verdict. Now, certainly the jury could have reached a different
verdict. But the Court cannot say that they clearly should have reached a different verdict based
upon all the testimony and most importantly the subrosa videos. The jury gave Plaintiff $100,000
in noneconomic. The Court cannot say they clearly should have reached a different verdict based
on that evidence, so the motion is denied.
2. During the hearing of this matter, counsel for Plaintiff made a verbal motion for new
trial based on misstatements of expert witnesses of their billings. This was not properly before the
court. Even on the merits it does not warrant a new trial, and therefore the Court denied the motion
for new trial on both grounds.
3. Defendant filed written Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Addendum of page line
summaries and excerpts of rough transcripts of trial testimony of expert witnesses submitted in
support of Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial or Additur. The Court stated at the hearing that the
rough transcripts were reviewed to refresh recollection, but the rough transcripts are not admissible.
Thus, the Defendant’s objections as to admissibility are sustained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: G/ LY Doo By: DL LSA
Judge of the Superior Court
Approval as to Form: of é
Dated: 6ftE/ 2e2g
2.
[2RGESSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR ADDITURSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Francisco
NINA RUSANOVSCHI, Case No. CGC-19-572476
Plaintiff
vs. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
(CCP 1013a (4))
YOSHIO NAKASHIMA, et. al.
Defendant(s)
I, Sylvia Java, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco,
certify that I am not a party to the within action.
On June 19, 2020, I served the attached ORDER, by placing a copy thereof in a sealed
envelope, addressed as follows:
Wilma J. Gray, Esq. Walter Herbert Walker III, Esq.
Cyrus A. Nazarian, Esq. WALKER, HAMILTON & KOENIG, LLP
MCNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, 50 Francisco Street, Suite 460
SLATTERY, BORGES & San Francisco, CA 94133
AMBACHER, LLP
3480 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 250
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA.
94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and mailing
on that date following standard court practices.
Dated: June 19, 2020 :
T. MICHAEL YUEN, Clerk/Executive Officer
Sylvia J ava( The
By: helo Qe—
puty Clexk
Preview
McNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3480 BUSKIRK AVENUE, SUITE 250, PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330 om NY DH BF BW NY a FI Superior Court of Calforni County of San Francisegs WILMA J. GRAY (State Bar No. 188386) wilma,gray@mcnamaralaw.com f IAZARIAN (State Bar No. 323748) _ JUN 7 9 2020 cyrus.nazarian@mcnamaralaw.com CLERK OF T COURT MCNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BY: Byline SMe BorGes & AMBACHER LLP C Deputy Cee 3480 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 250 en Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone: (925) 939-5330 Facsimile: (925) 939-0203 Attorneys for Defendant YOSHIO NAKASHIMA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION , NINA RUSANOVSCHI, Case No. CGC19572476 Plaintiff, [EESRGEED) ORDER DENYING | PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW vs. | ‘TRIAL OR ADDITUR BASED ON FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR PAIN YOSHIO NAKASHIMA, and DOES 1 to AND SUFFERING 100, Trial Date: 2/10/2020 Defendants: Action Filed: 1/2/2019 ke |, remote video conference held by Judge John K. Stewart of Department 504 of the San Francisco | — Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial or Additur came on regularly for hearing on June 5, 2020 by f County Superior Court. (The court reporter appeared remotely to transcribed the hearing.) Plaintiff |, appeared by her counsel, Walter H. Walker, III and Boris Efron and Defendant appeared by his counsel, Wilma J. Gray. The court reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and considered the oral arguments of counsel. Upon good cause appearing therefore, the | Court orders as follows: The motion for new trial or additur is DENIED on all grounds. 1. The Court cannot grant a motion for new trial based on inadequate damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 657, unless after weighing all the evidence, the Court is convinced from the entire record including all reasonable inferences therefrom that the jury clearly [PRORSSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR ADDITURATTORNEYS AT LAW McNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, BORGES & AMBACHER LLP 3480 BUSKIRK AVENUE, SUITE 250, PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 TELEPHONE: (925) 939-5330 oe IN DH HW Fw WD NbN MN NY NY NY NN NY ee Be ewe Be ewe ee ewe ew oN DUP DB YOY F&F So we RIA AA Ro YH BS should have reached a different verdict. Now, certainly the jury could have reached a different verdict. But the Court cannot say that they clearly should have reached a different verdict based upon all the testimony and most importantly the subrosa videos. The jury gave Plaintiff $100,000 in noneconomic. The Court cannot say they clearly should have reached a different verdict based on that evidence, so the motion is denied. 2. During the hearing of this matter, counsel for Plaintiff made a verbal motion for new trial based on misstatements of expert witnesses of their billings. This was not properly before the court. Even on the merits it does not warrant a new trial, and therefore the Court denied the motion for new trial on both grounds. 3. Defendant filed written Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's Addendum of page line summaries and excerpts of rough transcripts of trial testimony of expert witnesses submitted in support of Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial or Additur. The Court stated at the hearing that the rough transcripts were reviewed to refresh recollection, but the rough transcripts are not admissible. Thus, the Defendant’s objections as to admissibility are sustained. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: G/ LY Doo By: DL LSA Judge of the Superior Court Approval as to Form: of é Dated: 6ftE/ 2e2g 2. [2RGESSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR ADDITURSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of San Francisco NINA RUSANOVSCHI, Case No. CGC-19-572476 Plaintiff vs. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (CCP 1013a (4)) YOSHIO NAKASHIMA, et. al. Defendant(s) I, Sylvia Java, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action. On June 19, 2020, I served the attached ORDER, by placing a copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Wilma J. Gray, Esq. Walter Herbert Walker III, Esq. Cyrus A. Nazarian, Esq. WALKER, HAMILTON & KOENIG, LLP MCNAMARA, NEY, BEATTY, 50 Francisco Street, Suite 460 SLATTERY, BORGES & San Francisco, CA 94133 AMBACHER, LLP 3480 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 250 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA. 94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and mailing on that date following standard court practices. Dated: June 19, 2020 : T. MICHAEL YUEN, Clerk/Executive Officer Sylvia J ava( The By: helo Qe— puty Clexk