What is a Motion for a Directed Verdict?

Useful Rulings on Motion for a Directed Verdict

Recent Rulings on Motion for a Directed Verdict

ANDREW BURKOT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

(d) This section shall only apply if the defendant or cross-defendant has made a motion for summary judgment, judgment under Section 631.8, directed verdict, or nonsuit and the motion is granted. (CCP §1038.) “[T]he filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney fees as costs post trial.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMBER GARCIA VS MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PAASCH BUSINESS GROUP INC VS. PRECISION AIRPARTS SUPPORT SERVICES INC

The court directed verdict in favor of the Paasch for $9,000 on the Taiwan Agreement, after PASS conceded the debt. The jury returned a special verdict on July 19, 2019. The jury found that Paasch had proved a breach of the Agency Agreement, and it awarded Paasch contract damages of $56,000 as a "Retainer Fee" and $85,858 as a "Success Fee." It found that Paasch was not entitled to any further damages on its common counts.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS FONSECA

CCP section 1038 provides that a defendant who is successful on a "summary judgment, motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment under Section 631.8, or any nonsuit dismissing" "[i]n any civil proceeding under the Government Claims Act (Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code)" may recover defense costs, which include attorney's fees if the action "lacked either reasonable cause or good faith in filing or maintaining the lawsuit." (Kobzoff v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAMES SANTINO VS KEVIN MICHAEL POSEKIAN ET AL

., enough evidence to avoid summary judgment or a nonsuit or directed verdict at trial). Even if discovery is ordered, the defendant is presumptively entitled to a protective order limiting disclosure of the evidence solely to opposing counsel and solely for the purposes of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are never awarded as a matter of right, they are not favored by the law and they should be granted with the greatest of caution and only in the clearest of cases.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

JAMES SANTINO VS KEVIN MICHAEL POSEKIAN ET AL

., enough evidence to avoid summary judgment or a nonsuit or directed verdict at trial). Even if discovery is ordered, the defendant is presumptively entitled to a protective order limiting disclosure of the evidence solely to opposing counsel and solely for the purposes of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are never awarded as a matter of right, they are not favored by the law and they should be granted with the greatest of caution and only in the clearest of cases.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

LSVG, LLC. VS MTC FINANCIAL, INC. DBA TRUSTEE CORPS., ET AL.

App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CALHOON VS MEJIA

Examples of judgments entered without trial that are subject to a motion for new trial pursuant section 659 include summary judgments, judgments of nonsuit, judgments on a directed verdict, judgments of dismissal after demurrer sustained without leave to amend, judgments of dismissal generally (e.g., for lack of prosecution), and judgments on the pleadings. (Wegner, Fairbank, Epstein, Chernow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Trials & Evidence (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶¶ 18:115-127.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

BELL CANYON ASSOCIATION INC ET AL VS RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY

The insurer moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court granted in-part and denied in-part. (Id.) On both parties’ cross-appeals of the trial court’s directed verdict, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court had erred in denying the insurer a directed verdict on the issue of whether the insurer had committed fraud. (Id. at pp. 1110-11.) The court held that the brochure had not contained any misrepresentations and had placed Dr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SAMUEL SALEMAN, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, EMANUEL SOMECH VS ROSARIO GONZALEZ

App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

MARIAM MITOYAN VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

RICHARD WILLIAMS VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS JOE TEH CHUANG ET AL

“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 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

    Aug 03, 2020

CREDIT CARD SERVICES INC VS JOE TEH CHUANG ET AL

“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 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

    Aug 03, 2020

HARRIS VS ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK

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. The motion can only be granted if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JORDAN GROSSMAN VS JESSICA HERWILL ET AL

WJKA thereupon made a motion for Directed Verdict. On June 3, 2019 the Court, for the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion of that date, granted that motion on Herwill’s Negligence cause of action and her cause of action for Fraud, Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation and Concealment and granted the motion in part as to Herwill’s causes of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Contract. The Court also granted the Motion on Herwill’s claim for Punitive Damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

Under those facts, Plaintiffs would be entitled to a directed verdict. Thus, granting a new trial would serve no purpose other than delay. Ford also argues the award of civil penalties is improper because the jury was unduly influenced by evidence of emotional distress. In support of this argument, Ford points to statements made by jurors regarding emotional distress that were made during voir dire, before Plaintiffs withdrew the claim for emotional distress damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORD MOTOR TRANSMISSION CASES

Under those facts, Plaintiffs would be entitled to a directed verdict. Thus, granting a new trial would serve no purpose other than delay. Ford also argues the award of civil penalties is improper because the jury was unduly influenced by evidence of emotional distress. In support of this argument, Ford points to statements made by jurors regarding emotional distress that were made during voir dire, before Plaintiffs withdrew the claim for emotional distress damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALEXANDRA FILIPPINI V. JEAN AVRICK

A plaintiff's burden under Section 425.16 is similar to the standard used in determining motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, or summary judgment. Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 883, 901. The plaintiff is required to demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment, assuming the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is believed. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU VS NINA C MONTOYA

Legal Standard A 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.” (CCP § 629(a).) “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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

The trial judge found that probable cause existed for McCartney to have pursued the lawsuit and issued a directed verdict in McCartney's favor on July 12, 2012. The Dovichis successfully appealed the directed verdict. The focus of the appellate action was whether McCartney had probable cause to be involved in the Bendahans' lawsuit, as a claim for malicious prosecution requires a plaintiff to establish that probable cause to bring the legal action was lacking and that the action was initiated with malice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CANDICE OREJEL VS EARLY STRIDES CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER LLC

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FAYE PIERSON, ET AL. VS. JESUS DURAZO, ET AL.

App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSEMARIE BERNAL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

In such a case . . . the ‘court should grant’ the motion ‘and “avoid a . . . trial’ rendered ‘useless’ by nonsuit or directed verdict or similar device. (Id. at 855.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ADP, LLC, ET AL. VS ORNELAS & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

App. 4th 820, 850) (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); (Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.