MTA motion in California

2024A. Instructional Error “A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 .) “The trial court’s ‘duty to instruct the jury is discharged if its instructions embrace all points of law necessary to a decision.’ [Citation.] ‘A party is not entitled to have the jury instructed in any particular fashion or phraseology, and may not complain if the court correctly gives the substance of the applicable law.’ [Citation.]” (Cristler v.

2024A. Instructional Error “A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 .) “The trial court’s ‘duty to instruct the jury is discharged if its instructions embrace all points of law necessary to a decision.’ [Citation.] ‘A party is not entitled to have the jury instructed in any particular fashion or phraseology, and may not complain if the court correctly gives the substance of the applicable law.’ [Citation.]” (Cristler v.

2024A. Instructional Error “A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 .) “The trial court’s ‘duty to instruct the jury is discharged if its instructions embrace all points of law necessary to a decision.’ [Citation.] ‘A party is not entitled to have the jury instructed in any particular fashion or phraseology, and may not complain if the court correctly gives the substance of the applicable law.’ [Citation.]” (Cristler v.

2016(Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1249- 1250.) “ ‘The “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his [or her] court, and while his [or her] judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong”—meaning that it abused its discretion. [Citations.]’ ” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 .) Here, the MTA does not challenge the lodestar.

2016(Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1249- 1250.) “ ‘The “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his [or her] court, and while his [or her] judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong”—meaning that it abused its discretion. [Citations.]’ ” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 .) Here, the MTA does not challenge the lodestar.

2015Instructional Error “‘“[P]arties have the ‘right to have the jury instructed as to the law applicable to all their theories of the case which were supported by the pleadings and the evidence, whether or not that evidence was considered persuasive by the trial court.’ [Citation.] ‘A reviewing court must review the evidence most favorable to the contention that the requested instruction is applicable since the parties are entitled to an instruction thereon if the evidence so viewed could establish the elements of the theory presented. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ayala v.

2015On summary judgment, as at trial, “ ‘an 13 erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal only if “there is a reasonable probability that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” ’ ” (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 857 .) Given the wealth of evidence submitted by both sides, the EEOC’s conclusory statement is of marginal relevance to the resolution of MTA’s motion.

2014TSP does not suggest otherwise but contends, as it did in connection with its judicial estoppel argument, that MTA’s claim for its fees is enough: “[I]n evaluating if the losing party would have been entitled to fees on its claim, the court does not evaluate whether the losing party’s claim on the contract was meritorious or was resolved on the merits, only whether, if hypothetically, it would have been entitled to fees had it prevailed on its claims.” That is not a correct statement of the law, at least as TSP attempts to apply it to the contractual attorney fee issue here; and TSP’s reliance

2014The lower court cannot reopen the case on the facts, 41 allow the filing of amended or supplemental pleadings, nor retry the case, and if it should do so, the judgment rendered thereon would be void.”’” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 701 .) “The trial court is empowered to act only in accordance with the direction of the reviewing court; action which does not conform to those directions is void.” (Hampton v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655 ; accord, Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 851, 859 .) MTA attempts to justify the trial cour

2014The lower court cannot reopen the case on the facts, 41 allow the filing of amended or supplemental pleadings, nor retry the case, and if it should do so, the judgment rendered thereon would be void.”’” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 701 .) “The trial court is empowered to act only in accordance with the direction of the reviewing court; action which does not conform to those directions is void.” (Hampton v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655 ; accord, Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 851, 859 .) MTA attempts to justify the trial cour

2013(See Johnson, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 243 .) There was no showing the costs invoiced by Counsel Press, to the extent they Litton Systems, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 681 , 685 [order taxing costs is preliminary to later proceedings and may be challenged in appeal from subsequent judgment] with Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 213, 223 [order denying motion to tax costs is separately appealable as order after final judgment].) In each of the published cases, however, the appeal was allowed.

2013(See Johnson, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 243 .) There was no showing the costs invoiced by Counsel Press, to the extent they Litton Systems, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 681 , 685 [order taxing costs is preliminary to later proceedings and may be challenged in appeal from subsequent judgment] with Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 213, 223 [order denying motion to tax costs is separately appealable as order after final judgment].) In each of the published cases, however, the appeal was allowed.

1997Suffice it to say that, as the MTA points out, the record contains no evidence there ever have been or will be any proceedings to form a special assessment district for the transit project at issue in this case, and nothing we say here in any way affects the rule in Oro Loma Sanitary Dist. v. Valley (1948) 86 Cal. App.2d 875 [ 195 P.2d 913 ], that when an assessment has been imposed, there may be no offset of benefits. [7] The MTA's motion for new trial urged that the jury's severance damage award was not supported by the evidence and that the trial court had erred in refusing to permit the MT

1997Suffice it to say that, as the MTA points out, the record contains no evidence there ever have been or will be any proceedings to form a special assessment district for the transit project at issue in this case, and nothing we say here in any way affects the rule in Oro Loma Sanitary Dist. v. Valley (1948) 86 Cal. App.2d 875 [ 195 P.2d 913 ], that when an assessment has been imposed, there may be no offset of benefits. [7] The MTA's motion for new trial urged that the jury's severance damage award was not supported by the evidence and that the trial court had erred in refusing to permit the MT

1997Suffice it to say that, as the MTA points out, the record contains no evidence there ever have been or will be any proceedings to form a special assessment district for the transit project at issue in this case, and nothing we say here in any way affects the rule in Oro Loma Sanitary Dist. v. Valley (1948) 86 Cal. App.2d 875 [ 195 P.2d 913 ], that when an assessment has been imposed, there may be no offset of benefits. [7] The MTA's motion for new trial urged that the jury's severance damage award was not supported by the evidence and that the trial court had erred in refusing to permit the MT

1997Suffice it to say that, as the MTA points out, the record contains no evidence there ever have been or will be any proceedings to form a special assessment district for the transit project at issue in this case, and nothing we say here in any way affects the rule in Oro Loma Sanitary Dist. v. Valley (1948) 86 Cal. App.2d 875 [ 195 P.2d 913 ], that when an assessment has been imposed, there may be no offset of benefits. [7] The MTA's motion for new trial urged that the jury's severance damage award was not supported by the evidence and that the trial court had erred in refusing to permit the MT