SCHJOTH, ET AL. VS. LYNCH

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.

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