Motion for New Trial; Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVRI2205358 MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BY REYNA ROMAN VS JACKSON ROMAN Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. Hearing will be conducted on Monday June 15, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department PS2. No further briefing is permitted.
This case arises from a breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and fraud suit involving a construction company owned and operated by Plaintiff and Defendant who started the business after the start of a romantic relationship together. A complaint was filed on December 27, 2022.
On January 27, 2026, a jury returned a complete defense verdict on Plaintiff’s operative 2nd Amended Complaint and a complete cross defendant verdict on Cross Complainant’s operative cross complaint. Plaintiff/Cross Defendant brings the instant motion for new trial on two grounds: (1) Insufficiency of evidence (CCP Section 657(6).) Defendant has filed written opposition.
Motion for New Trial
A motion for new trial asks the court to reexamine one or more issues of fact or law after trial. (See CCP § 656.) The right to a new trial is purely statutory. (Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162, 166.) “As the motion for a new trial finds both its source and its limitations in the statutes ... the procedural steps prescribed by law ... are mandatory and must be strictly followed.” (Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 118.) Likewise, the grounds for new trial are entirely statutory. (CCP § 657.)
CCP § 658 provides that when a motion for new trial is based on one of the first four categories enunciated in CCP § 657
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Insufficient Evidence, CCP § 657(6)
A court will not disturb a jury finding “unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.” (CCP § 657.) The court would like to discuss further with counsel on June 15, 2026 at 8:30 a.m., Department PS2.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVRI2205358 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ROMAN VS JACKSON NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICT Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. Hearing will be conducted on Monday June 15, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Department PS2. No further briefing is permitted.
This case arises from a breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and fraud suit involving a construction company owned and operated by Plaintiff and Defendant who started the business after the start of a romantic relationship together. A complaint was filed on December 27, 2022.
On January 27, 2026, a jury returned a complete defense verdict on Plaintiff’s operative 2nd Amended Complaint and a complete cross defendant verdict on Cross Complainant’s operative cross complaint. Plaintiff/Cross Defendant brings the instant motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict (JNOV). Defendant has filed written opposition.
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)
A judge may grant a motion for JNOV only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 55 Cal. App. 5th 244, 253.) The court would like to discuss further with counsel on June 15, 2026 at 8:30 a.m., Department PS2.