Order: TANISHA BENNETT VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED
                                                                                       Superior Court of California
                                                                                          County of Los Angeles

                                                                                                SEP 30 2019
                                                                                  Sherri R. Carter, Executive   Uritcer/Clerk of Court



                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                             FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES


TANISHA       BENNETT                                   CASE   NO.: BC670310

                Plaintiff,               )    [Te       tive] Order Denying Defendants’
                                                        Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding
                                                        the Verdict

                                                        (CCP § 629)
                                                        Hon. Lia Martin, Judge
                                                        Stanley Mosk Courthouse
                                                        Department 16

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF
JIM McDONNELL, DEPUTY L. RAZO,                          September 30, 2019
DEPUTY P. CHAPMAN, DEPUTY
NAAPUONA, DEPUTY De La TORRE

Defendants.


TO PLAINTIFF TANISHA BENNETT, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL OF RECORD, AND TO
DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND DEPUTY L. RAZO, AND
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Defendants County of Los Angeles and Laila Razo move for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict (“JNOV”) as to the punitive damage award in favor of Plaintiff Tanisha Bennett and
against Defendant Laila Razo in the amount of $4,000 because of the insufficiency of the
evidence. Specifically, the defendants contend there was “insufficient evidence at trial needed to
establish that Deputy Razo intended to injure Plaintiff or engaged in outrageous and despicable
conduct with the conscious disregard for the rights or safety or [sic] Plaintiff.”

“A motion for JNOV may be granted only when there is no substantial evidence to support the
verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict.
[(Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 878...)] ‘If there is any substantial
evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion

                                                    1