Bodozian v. Total Holdings USA CA2/3

Filed 2/5/21 Bodozian v. Total Holdings USA CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

LAILA BODOZIAN, B285141

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC539230 v.

TOTAL HOLDINGS USA, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lia Martin, Judge. Affirmed.

The Law Offices of Cynthia A. de Petris and Cynthia A. de Petris for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith and Hellar-Ann Hancock for Defendants and Respondents. _________________________

After a jury found defendants’ conduct was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries, plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground of jury misconduct, offering her attorney’s declaration concerning a post-trial conversation with a juror as the sole supporting evidence. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. (2).)1 The trial court denied the motion because it was not supported by an affidavit with admissible evidence of juror misconduct. (See § 658; Evid. Code, § 1150.) Plaintiff contends the court abused its discretion. We disagree and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff sued defendants for motor vehicle negligence, alleging defendant Frankie Lee Cade hit her elbow with his passenger side mirror while she walked on a public street. Defendants denied they caused the accident and disputed plaintiff’s alleged injuries. A jury returned a special verdict, finding, by an 11 to one majority, Cade was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on the ground of jury misconduct. Her only supporting evidence was the declaration of her attorney, Joseph Faccone. Faccone declared juror number six told “all counsel that the jurors considered the intent of defendant [Cade] as a factor in determining liability, causation and damages.” Faccone claimed, without explanation, that “a Declaration from [juror number six] was unattainable.” He said juror number six also reported juror number ten “argued that since there was no evidence presented that defendant [Cade] intentionally struck plaintiff with the vehicle he was operating,