jnov motion in California

2026(Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 18 .) In contrast, an order denying a JNOV motion is directly appealable. (§ 904.1, subd. (a)(4); see Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68 (Sweatman).) Therefore, to the extent that the postjudgment order of October 25, 2024, denied Lord’s JNOV motion, he should have expressly designated the order in his subsequent notice of appeal.

2026(See Sweatman, supra, at p. 68 .) Since Lord’s notice of appeal does not reference the order denying the JNOV motion and he submits no argument challenging that ruling, we will not address the order denying the JNOV motion. 8 III.

2023(Id. at p. 1241.) Our colleagues in Division Six concluded the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s JNOV motion on the ground the defense counsel had not objected to the defect before the jury was discharged, stating, “ ‘ “Failure to object to a verdict before the discharge of a jury and to request clarification or further deliberation precludes a party from later questioning the validity of that verdict if the alleged defect was apparent at the time the verdict was rendered and could have been corrected.” [Citation.]’ ” (Id. at p. 1242, quoting Keener v. Jeld– Wen, Inc. (2009) 4

2023(Id. at p. 1241.) Our colleagues in Division Six concluded the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s JNOV motion on the ground the defense counsel had not objected to the defect before the jury was discharged, stating, “ ‘ “Failure to object to a verdict before the discharge of a jury and to request clarification or further deliberation precludes a party from later questioning the validity of that verdict if the alleged defect was apparent at the time the verdict was rendered and could have been corrected.” [Citation.]’ ” (Id. at p. 1242, quoting Keener v. Jeld– Wen, Inc. (2009) 4

2021(Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1188 (Wilson) [substantial evidence standard of review]; Hirst v. City of Oceanside (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 774, 782 [on review of denial of JNOV motion appellate court reviews the record de novo to determine independently whether there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict].) We consider the entire record to determine if there is any substantial evidence—contradicted or uncontradicted—that supports the jury’s verdict.

2021If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied.’ [Citation.]” (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110 (Hauter).) In reviewing a trial court’s order denying a JNOV motion, “an appellate court must review the record de novo and make an independent determination whether there is any substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings. [Citations.] This review is limited to determining whether there is any substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. [Citation.] The court must accept as true t

2026If a [JNOV motion] is not determined before that date, the effect shall 12 be a denial of that motion without further order of the court.” (§ 629, subd. (b).) “‘“A [JNOV motion] 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. [Citation.] … As in the trial court, the standard of review [on appeal] is whether any substantial evidence— contradicted or uncontradicted—supports the jury’s conclusion.”’” (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 192 (Webb).) “‘

2023On appeal, the standard of review for a JNOV motion “‘“is whether any substantial evidence—contradicted or uncontradicted—supports the jury’s conclusion.”’” (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 192 .) Here, Alai argues the jury should have found in her favor on the contract claim because Colton admitted he didn’t refund the unused portion of the retainer fee, a purported breach of the contract.11 10 On this issue, her opening and reply briefs cite to only one case for the proposition that contract interpretation is generally an issue of law. 11 Alai also argues Colton adm

2025MERITS OF JNOV MOTION “A [JNOV motion] 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 (Sweatman).) A trial court’s discretion in granting a JNOV motion “‘is severely limited.’” (Hansen v. Sunnyside Products, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510 (Hansen).) “‘The trial judge cannot reweigh the evidence [citation], or judge the credibility of witnesses. [Citation.] If the evidence is conflicting or if s

2013(See Stevenson v. Oceanic Bank (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 306, 313, 318 [JNOV motion properly granted when jury awarded damages based on erroneous contract interpretation supported by incompetent extrinsic evidence]; Hansen v. Sunnyside Products, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1510 ["Where appropriate a partial JNOV may be granted."].) In sum, we reject Estancia's argument that KB invited the error in the jury's determination of disputed contractual interpretation issues based upon incompetent extrinsic evidence.

2024(See Minnegren v. Nozar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 500, 514, fn. 7 [denial of new trial motion reviewed for abuse of discretion, but factual determinations reviewed for substantial evidence]; City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 872 [appellate court reviews “entire record, including the evidence, so as to make an independent determination as to whether the error was prejudicial”].) As for the JNOV motion, we lack jurisdiction to consider a challenge to its denial.

2023Standard of Review “A trial court may grant a motion for [JNOV] only if the evidence, viewed most favorably to the prevailing party, is insufficient to support the verdict.” (Markow v. Rosner (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1044-1045 .) “ ‘On appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion, an appellate court must review the record de novo and make an independent determination whether there is any substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Minnegren v. Nozar (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 500, 514, fn. 7 .) “The denial of a new trial motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion

2025In Teitel v. First Los Angeles Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1593 (Teitel), the trial court granted the defendant’s JNOV motion and reduced the jury’s award of $500,000 punitive damages to $50,000, but denied the defendant’s motion for new trial.

2023(Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68 .) The JNOV motion 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.” (Ibid.) “The trial court’s discretion in granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is severely limited.” (Teitel v. First Los Angeles Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1593, 1603 (Teitel).) “‘“The trial judge cannot reweigh the evidence [citation], or judge the credibility of witnesses. [Citation.] If the evidence is conflict

2015Defendant filed its JNOV motion in which it argued, pursuant to Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 596 ] (Trujillo), that the special verdict was too inconsistent to be enforced, plaintiff had no evidence to support the punitive damages award, and the punitive damages award was excessive as a matter of law.

2015Defendant filed its JNOV motion in which it argued, pursuant to Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 596 ] (Trujillo), that the special verdict was too inconsistent to be enforced, plaintiff had no evidence to support the punitive damages award, and the punitive damages award was excessive as a matter of law.

2024Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(4)), Jones had to “file a timely notice of appeal from the order to obtain appellate review. [Citation.] A notice of appeal from a judgment alone does not encompass other judgments and separately appealable orders.” (Sole Energy Co. v. 20 Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 239 .) Here, Jones’s notice of appeal identified only the judgment, and not the later order denying the JNOV motion.

2019(Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 240 [order denying motion for new trial is nonappealable and must be reviewed on appeal of underlying judgment].) Because we have affirmed the trial court’s order granting the JNOV motion, we dismiss as moot the Weed defendants’ appeal from the judgment.

2015“On appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion, this court reviews the record in order to make an independent determination whether there is any substantial evidence[,contradicted or not,] to support the jury’s findings. [Citations.]” (Murray’s Iron Works, Inc. v. Boyce (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1284 .) In so doing we must resolve any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.

2015Code, §§ 484, subd. (a) [providing theft is when a person "steal[s]" or "take[s]" or "fraudulently appropriate[s]" the "personal property" of another, including "money"] & 532, subd. (a) [providing embezzlement is when a person "knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money"]; Clay, supra, 143 Cal.App.2d at p. 445 ; Murray's Iron Works, Inc. v. Boyce (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1284 (Boyce) [noting that on "appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion, this court reviews the record in order to make an independent determination w

2026If a [JNOV motion] is not determined before that date, the effect shall 12 be a denial of that motion without further order of the court.” (§ 629, subd. (b).) “‘“A [JNOV motion] 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. [Citation.] … As in the trial court, the standard of review [on appeal] is whether any substantial evidence— contradicted or uncontradicted—supports the jury’s conclusion.”’” (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 192 (Webb).) “‘

2026If a [JNOV motion] is not determined before that date, the effect shall 12 be a denial of that motion without further order of the court.” (§ 629, subd. (b).) “‘“A [JNOV motion] 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. [Citation.] … As in the trial court, the standard of review [on appeal] is whether any substantial evidence— contradicted or uncontradicted—supports the jury’s conclusion.”’” (Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 192 (Webb).) “‘

2026Standard of Review Where the appealing party has moved for JNOV on the ground the verdict is not supported by the evidence, our “ ‘standard of review is whether any substantial evidence—contradicted or uncontradicted—supports the jury’s conclusion. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Accordingly, we may reverse an order denying a JNOV motion ‘only if, reviewing all the evidence in the light 5 most favorable to [the prevailing party], resolving all conflicts, and drawing all inferences in [its] favor, and deferring to the implicit credibility determinations of the trier of fact, there was no substantial

2026On appeal, Pech contends the trial court erred in denying his JNOV motion because, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, the undisputed evidence compelled a finding in his favor on this affirmative defense.6 Specifically, Pech argues there is no legal 6 As a general rule, a trial court may grant JNOV “only if the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence.” (Begnal v. Canfield & Associates, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 .) Pech, however, had the burden to prove his affirmative defense, and 11 precedent for imposing malpractice liability against an attorney where a court-appointed fiduc

2023(IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 639 .) When the JNOV motion raises legal issues like the interpretation of a statute or the application of law to undisputed facts, we review the trial court’s ruling under a de novo standard of review.

2021JNOV Motion A. Review Standards An appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion “is essentially the same as appealing the judgment itself for a lack of substantial evidence.” (IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 639 .) A trial court may grant the motion 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.

2023(Pacific Corporate Group Holdings, LLC v. Keck (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 294, 309 ; Begnal v. Canfield & Associates, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 (Begnal) [appellate review 31 limited to determining existence of substantial evidence to support verdict]; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 284 .) “As in the trial court, the standard of review is whether any substantial evidence– contradicted or uncontradicted–supports the jury’s conclusion.” (Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68 (Sweatman).) We accept as true the evidence supporting

2021(Pacific Corporate Group Holdings, LLC v. Keck (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 294, 309 ; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 284 .) Our review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence that supports the jury’s verdict.

2022(Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affair (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68 .) When a plaintiff’s verdict is challenged for lack of substantial evidence, we must determine whether there is evidence that is “ ‘ “reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; [constituting] ‘substantial’ proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.” ’ ” (DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 336 .) To do so, we first resolve all explicit conflicts in the evidence and presume all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict.

2022(Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affair (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68 .) We must determine whether there is evidence that is “ ‘ “reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; [constituting] ‘substantial’ proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.” ’ ” (DiMartino v. City of Orinda (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 329, 336 .) To do so, we first resolve all explicit conflicts in the evidence and presume all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict.

2021(Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 770 .) 37 On appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion, we determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supporting the jury’s verdict.

2021(Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 770 .) 37 On appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion, we determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supporting the jury’s verdict.

2015(Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 325 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 ]; Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361, 366 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 336 ].) Ordinarily, “[o]n appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion, we ‘review[] the record in order to make an independent determination whether there is any substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings.’ [Citation.]” (Scott v. Ford Motor Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1499 [ 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ].) The issue of whether in this case there can be liability for failure to prevent harassment under section 12940, subdivision (k), however, is a questi

2015(Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 325 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 ]; Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361, 366 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 336 ].) Ordinarily, “[o]n appeal from the denial of a JNOV motion, we ‘review[] the record in order to make an independent determination whether there is any substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings.’ [Citation.]” (Scott v. Ford Motor Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1499 [ 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ].) The issue of whether in this case there can be liability for failure to prevent harassment under section 12940, subdivision (k), however, is a questi

2023A JNOV “can be sustained only when it can be said as a matter of law that no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, and that any other holding would be so lacking in evidentiary support that the reviewing court would be compelled to reverse it, or the trial court would be compelled to set it aside as a matter of law . . . .” (Moore v. City & County of San Francisco (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 728, 733 .) In considering a JNOV motion, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict.

2023A JNOV “can be sustained only when it can be said as a matter of law that no other reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, and that any other holding would be so lacking in evidentiary support that the reviewing court would be compelled to reverse it, or the trial court would be compelled to set it aside as a matter of law . . . .” (Moore v. City & County of San Francisco (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 728, 733 .) In considering a JNOV motion, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict.

2021(Tognazzini v. San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1053 , 1057–1058.) In deciding whether to grant the motion, the trial court cannot weigh the evidence or assess credibility.

2008(Tognazzini, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 1058 .) If sufficient evidence supports the verdict, we must uphold the trial court’s denial of the JNOV motion.

2024(Contrast, Burch, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 347, 348 [court had jurisdiction to review order denying JNOV motion where appellant “wrote that it appealed from a judgment or order entered March 20, 2017, and it checked two boxes indicating appeal from a judgment after jury trial and an order or judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(3)– (13);” it was “reasonably apparent that defendant sought to 18 appeal the order denying JNOV, as well as the judgment.”].) Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to this order.

2024“Where a party seeks to challenge an appealable order issued after a judgment, . . . the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment alone is insufficient to grant jurisdiction over the separately appealable order.” (Burch v. CertainTeed Corporation (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 341, 347 (Burch).) An “[a]ppellant cannot obtain review of the postjudgment order simply by including the postjudgment proceedings in the record on appeal from the judgment.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, supra, ¶¶ 3:119.1—3:119.2 (CACIVAPP Ch. 3-E).) Nothing in Rockstar’s notice of appeal