Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Daniel DeGroot, et al. v. Emerald Hills Estates Homeowners Assoc., et al., 20CV-0626
Hearing: Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Date: May 27, 2026
On December 2, 2020, Daniel DeGroot and Kimberly Conti DeGroot, trustees of the DeGroot Family Trust (Plaintiffs), filed this action against EHHOA dba Emerald Hills Estates Homeowners Association, Bruce Neuschwander (Neuschwander), and Joseph Seither (Seither). EHHOA filed a cross-complaint on May 17, 2021. Trial was held in May and June 2025, with the jury returning a verdict on June 13, 2025.
On March 17, 2026, the Court issued judgment incorporating the jury verdict and addressing the request for equitable relief. Plaintiffs filed and served a Notice of Entry of Judgment the following day. Defendants timely filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
Defendants ask the Court to change the answer to the following questions on the special verdict form:
• Breach of Contract Against Plaintiffs (No. 5): “Did Daniel and Kimberly DeGroot violate the CC&Rs in relation to the DeGroot wall.”
• Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing Against EHHOA (No. 3): “Did EHHOA improperly enforce the CC&Rs in relation to the De[G]root wall?
• Damages (No. 27): “Did EHHOA make its decision on ACC App 19-04 in good faith?”
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Joseph Seither (No. 9): “Did Joseph Seither breach his fiduciary duty to Daniel and Kimberly DeGroot in relation to the DeGroot wall by failing to act as a reasonably careful director of the homeowner’s association would have acted under the same or similar circumstances?”
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Bruce Neuschwander (No. 11): “Did Bruce Neuschwander breach his fiduciary duty to Daniel and Kimberly DeGroot in relation to the DeGroot wall by failing to act as a reasonably careful director of the homeowner’s association would have acted under the same or similar circumstances?
• Breach of Contract Against EHHOA (No. 2): “Was EHHOA’s breach of the CC&Rs a substantial factor in causing Daniel and Kimberly DeGroot harm?”
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against EHHOA (No. 8): “Was EHHOA’s conduct in relation to the DeGroot wall a substantial factor in causing Daniel and Kimberly DeGroot’s harm?”
• Negligence Against EHHOA (No. 18): “Was EHHOA’s negligence related to the DeGroot wall a substantial factor in causing harm to Daniel and Kimberly DeGroot?”
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?”
Defendants argue there is insufficient evidence to (1) support the findings that Plaintiffs did not breach the CC&Rs (No. 5); (2) support the findings that EHHOA acted in bad faith (Nos. 3 and 27); (3) overcome the protection of the business judgment rule (Nos. 9 and 11); and (4) support the findings that Defendants were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm (Nos. 2, 8, and 18).
When ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the following standard applies:
The trial judge’s power to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical to his power to grant a directed verdict. The trial judge cannot weigh the evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses. If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied. ‘A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of a jury may properly 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 to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied.’
(Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110, citations omitted.)
The Court has reviewed the parties’ arguments, legal authorities, and evidentiary submissions and finds there is substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdicts on the issues set forth above. 1 The Court notes this matter was zealously litigated by both sides before an attentive jury.
Finally, while the notice of motion references Code of Civil Procedure section 659 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1600, both of which concern motions for new trial, neither the notice of motion nor the supporting memorandum of points and authorities request a new trial. 2 (See Mtn., pp. 2-3 [setting forth legal standard on motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict].)
ORDER
The Court denies Defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
1 The Court was unable to locate some of the evidence cited by the parties (e.g., Defendants’ citation to Ex. D [Trial Transcript, 05/29/26, 34:25-35:14; Plaintiffs’ citation to Ex. F [LeGros Testimony, p. 18]; Plaintiffs’ citation to Ex. D-1 [Seither Testimony, p. 40].) 2 “The making of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict shall not extend the time within which a party may serve notice of intention to move for a new trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 629, subd. (b).) 2