Timanus vs. Melrose Recovery LLC.

court otherwise retains jurisdiction again, Defendant may request that the motion be calendared again for hearing.

Plaintiff to give notice.

8 Timanus vs. Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict Melrose Recovery Motion for New Trial LLC. Motion to Vacate Judgment

1. Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict; 2. Motion for New Trial; and 3. Motion to Vacate Judgment.

The court DENIES Defendant/Cross-Complainant WALTER YBARRA and Defendant RESTORATIONS HEALTH CARE LLC’s (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) motion to set aside the 5/18/26 Judgment and to enter a revised judgment notwithstanding the verdicts rendered by the jury on 4/28/26.

The court also DENIES Moving Defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The court also DENIES Moving Defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment.

For the separately filed JNOV motion (ROA 473), motion for new trial (ROA 476), and motion to vacate the judgment (ROA 469), Moving Defendants argue that the evidence received at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Specifically, moving parties argue that

“(1) [Plaintiff/Cross Defendant TRINA TIMANUS] did not establish that she suffered any harm; (2) Plaintiff did not present any credible evidence of damages; (3) the jury’s damages award was inconsistent with Plaintiffs breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims; (4) Plaintiff did not identify any breach of fiduciary duty by Ybarra upon which an award of punitive damages could be based; and (5) the jury’s punitive damages award was improper, as Plaintiff did not introduce evidence of

Ybarra’s current financial condition during the Trial-a prerequisite under California law for any punitive damages award-and as the jury’s punitive damages award was excessive and improper.”

(ROA 473, at p. 3, lines 8-16; ROA 476, at p. 3, lines 11-19; ROA 469, at p. 3, lines 13-21.)

Moving Defendants fail to support their arguments. There is no apparent defect in the verdict and the evidence presented at trial appears sufficient to support the verdict rendered by the jury.

The court further notes that Moving Defendants failed to submit the trial record, which the court is required to review if a new trial is granted based upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 657 [“A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict ..., unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the ... jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.”]; see also Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1152A, as modified (May 10, 2000) [“there must be substantial evidence in the record to support [the] reasons [for granting a new trial]”].) Here, Moving Defendants merely submit a copy of the Judgment.

In sum, each motion is DENIED. Plaintiff to give notice.

9 Vanderham vs. Demurrer (re Complaint) Pryor OFF-CALENDAR. (See 7/1/26 Minute Order [vacating hearing after moving party filed notice of withdrawal].)

10 The Regents of the Demurrer (re Complaint) University of Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint California, UC Irvine Medical Center vs. Kaiser

20