Motion,Ex Parte: JOHN CALLIGEROS VS HOWARD SIEGEL ET AL

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED
    CASE NAME:           John Calligeros v. Howard Siegel, et al.                Superior Court of    ia
                                                                                     ounty of Los A
    CASE NO.:            BC512982
    HEARING DATE         January 24, 2017                                             JAN 24 2017
    DEPARTMENT:          37
                                                                            Shen "See
    CALENDAR NO.         5                                                   By. ~
    TRIAL DATE:          May 2 — May 25, 2016
    NOTICE:              OK
    SUBJECT:             Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
    MOVING PARTY:        Defendants—Howard Siegel (“Siegel”) and Nationwide
                         Medical, Inc. (“Nationwide”) (collectively, “Defendants”)
    RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff—John Calligeros (‘Plaintiff’)

                              COURT'S (ME               RULING

        The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict by Defendants Howard
Siegel and Nationwide Medical, Inc. is Denied as to Plaintiff John Calligeros’s cause of
action for conversion (as to Siegel) and   Granted as to Plaintiff's   cause of action for
fraud (concealment).

                             DISCUSSION


         In their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Howard Siegel and
Nationwide (collectively, “Defendants”) challenge the jury’s findings with respect to
Plaintiffs conversion (as to Siegel) and fraud (concealment) causes of action on the
basis that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

1       Legal Standard

       The party against whom a verdict has been rendered may move the court for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the court shall grant the motion “whenever a
motion for directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a
previous motion been made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 629, subd. (a).) 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 now embodied by the jury's verdict. (Hauter v. Zogarts
(1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.)
      In ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court does not
weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. (Hauter, supra, 14 Cal.3d
at p. 110.) In other words, 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 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.” (Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68.)