Motion,Ex Parte: RUBEN SANTOS MARTINEZ VS JAVIER AVIEL VALENZUELA

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED
                                                                                        Supe rior Court of California
oh
                                                                                             junty of Los Angeles
nM
     10/22/21 (Hearing date: 10/15/21)                                                      OCT 22 2021
     Dept. D
                                                                                                     ee
                                                                                                    -x@cutive Officer/Cler!
     Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding                                                                                   -
                                                                                            dustin Herrera
     RUBEN SANTOS MARTINEZ v. JAVIER AVIEL VALENZUELA (19STCV39214)

     Counsel for plaintiff/moving party: David Lira and Brittan Cortney (Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack)
     Counsel for defendant/opposing party: Michael Moon and Ravi Lally (Macdonald & Cody)

     Plaintiff's Motion fo r New Trial (filed 9/17/21)

     Having read and considered the parties’ papers, having heard argument thereon on 10/15/21,
     and the matter having been submitted, the court now rules as follows:

     Ruling:

     1.       Plaintiff's motion for new trial is GRANTED. The ground for the grant of new trial is
              insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict (CCP § 657 (6)). This ruling shall suffice as
              the Order thereon. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated.
              The accompanying minute order will include notice of a trial setting conference to be
              scheduled in the personal injury court.

                                                       DISCUSSION

     After five trial days between 8/11/21 and 8/17/21, on 8/19/21, the jury rendered its special
     verdict in favor of Defendant Javier Valenzuela, finding he was not negligent.

     Before the court is Plaintiff Ruben Martinez’s motion for new trial.

          I      Timeliness of motion

     On 8/19/21, judgment was entered but notice of entry of judgment was not served until
     8/24/21.       On 9/7/21, Plaintiff timely filed and served his notice of intention to move for new
     trial. On 9/17/21, Plaintiff timely filed his motion for new trial. Pursuant to CCP §§ 629(b) and
     660, the 75" day for the court to rule on Plaintiff's new trial motion is 11/8/21. Opposition and
     reply papers have been filed.+




     * At the hearing, Defendant objected to Plaintiff's “new” evidence submitted with his reply. However,
     the “new” matter is responsive to the evidence and arguments raised in Defendant’s opposition. The
     objection is overruled. Defendant availed of the opportunity to argue against such matters and has not
     been prejudiced. Even were the court to sustain the objection, the court presided over the trial, heard
     the evidence, and can consider “the entire record” in ruling on Plaintiffs motion. ( CCP § 657)

                                                             1