Motion for a New Trial
CASE NUMBER: CVCV20-0194371 Tentative Ruling on Motion for a New Trial: Defendants move for a new jury trial. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
A jury trial as to damages ended in a verdict for Plaintiffs on January 15, 2026. Judgment was entered on March 30, 2026. Defendants filed the present Second Motion for a New Trial on May 1, 2026. Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed on April 17, 2026. As a preliminary matter, the motion was timely made per CCP § 659(a)(2). The burden of proof is on the moving party who must establish their position by a preponderance of the evidence. Price v. Hibbs (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 209, 215.
Merits. The grounds upon which a verdict may be vacated are enumerated in CCP § 657 which reads, in part:
The verdict may be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: ...
5. Excessive or inadequate damages 6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law.
7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application. CCP § 657.
Defendants Notice of Motion identifies three grounds for a new trial; specifically, excessive or inadequate damages, insufficient evidence and an error in law. CCP § 657(5-7).
Defendants argue that the Court misinterpreted or misapplied the 1996 Stipulated Judgment and that the prior 1924 and 1935 Decrees provided Defendants with the right to enter Plaintiffs property. Based on that purported right of entry, Defendants contend that it was an error in law to find a trespass.
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?”
The Court’s May 30, 2026, Judgment incorporated a prior ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. That ruling addressed the prior Decrees and Stipulated Judgment and found that the document did not give Defendants the right to construct new irrigation and that Defendants had “no authority to add structures such as log or riffle and they had no authority to enter and damage Plaintiffs’ property in whatever way they choose as long as it related to their irrigation.”
Defendants provided no authority to show that the documentations were misinterpreted by the Court. Accordingly, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show an error in law. An independent review of the Decrees and Stipulated Judgment also does not show there was any error in law in the Court’s prior interpretation.
As for the issues of excessive damages or insufficient evidence, Defendants did not address either issue in their memorandum of points and authorities. The Court finds that Defendants have not established an error in law, excessive damages or insufficient evidence that would warrant a new trial.
Sanctions. In their opposition, Plaintiffs request sanctions in the amount of $3,045 pursuant to CCP § 128.5. Plaintiffs take the position that the sanctions are warranted based on the frivolous nature of the motion. While the Court ultimately disagrees with Defendants’ position, there has been an insufficient showing that the motion was frivolous or made in bad faith to warrant sanctions. The request for sanctions is denied.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the denial.
SCHJOTH, ET AL. VS. LYNCH