Motion – New Trial
Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Linda Evans and Fadi Elahamadie (“Cross-Defendants”) move the court for an order granting a new trial in whole or in part pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 657. The motion follows a six-day jury trial in which judgment was entered in their favor for $60,000 based on breach of warranty of habitability theories, but in the Cross- Complaint, the jury found against them for $55,600 for negligent and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations.
Cross-Defendants argue that there was an error in law and insufficient evidence to justify the verdict. They also argue that the damages against them were excessive. They request that the court strike the $55,600 cross-award against them, or that the court vacate the judgment to the extent that it awards cross-damages unsupported by the verdict. They further request that the court order a new trial because the damages award in their favor was insufficient.
Legal Standard
Upon a motion for new trial, section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a court to modify or vacate a verdict, and to grant a new trial on part or all issues based in part on excessive damages, insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, or error in law.
Analysis
Cross-Defendants’ primary argument centers on their claim that the jury verdict form for intentional and negligent interference with prospective contractual relations improperly failed to identify independent wrongful conduct required for an award. In Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 376, the California Supreme Court held that proof of a wrongful act as a component of a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations was a required element. The Supreme Court noted however, that its holding was limited to “approving the requirement of a showing of wrongfulness as a part of the plaintiff’s case.” (Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. supra 11 Cal.5that 378.)
CV2202643
The parties jointly set forth special verdict forms for intentional interference with prospective economic relations and negligent interference with prospective economic relations. Each identified the wrongful conduct as failing and/or refusing to provide information and documentation required by the County of Marin’s Community Development Agency re: the Covid-19 rent relief program. There was no transcript of the trial proceedings and no evidence has been presented that Cross-Defendants objected to the special verdict forms.
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?”
Even setting aside the issue of waiver, however, after review of the arguments and evidence presented, the Court finds that Cross-Complainant advanced sufficient evidence of independent wrongfulness upon which the jury’s verdict would have been proper. For example, there was evidence from which a jury could have concluded that Cross-Defendants had misrepresented they would turn in the required documents, but had no intention to do so. (Gilg Declaration.)
There was also evidence that the parties were in a special relationship as landlord tenants such that Cross Defendants would have owed a duty to Cross Complainant to cooperate with Cross-Defendant to turn in forms they knew would result in rent payment reimbursement to Cross-Complainant, and that they intentionally chose not to cooperate. Cross-Defendant Evans acknowledged at trial that she intentionally decided not to cooperate because she did not want Cross-Complainant to receive the benefit of rent relief. (Gilg Declaration.)
Cross-Defendants also argue that the award against them in the amount of $55,600 was excessive, and that the $60,000 award in their favor was inadequate. Cross-Defendants have failed to set forth adequate evidence as to why the damages awarded to either side were improper. Nothing suggests that special damages were advanced by Cross-Defendants for wage loss or medical bills. On the other hand, testimony was provided by Cross-Complainant that she did not receive rent relief payments as a result of Cross-Defendants’ actions in failing to cooperate with the County of Marin’s rent relief program.
The motion for new trial is denied. In light of the above, Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (set for June 24, 2026), and Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the Verdict, (set for August 5, 2026), which raise identical issues, are denied as moot and ordered off calendar.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
The Zoom appearance information for June 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov