Important Change to our 30-day Money Back Guarantee ************************************** Due to the increasing allegations of fraudulent purchase transactions involving documents specifically designated for the purposes of litigation in eviction and/or unlawful detainer proceedings, we have been forced into choosing whether to continue offering such documents at all to ANYONE, or to declare that they are NON-REFUNDABLE, and are no longer covered by the 30-day money-back guarantee. ************************************** Consequently we have decided that as of March 16, 2024 at 1:00 am, PDT any single document specifically listed in the Eviction Defense Collection is hereby NON-REFUNDABLE. To determine if one or more of your proposed documents are NON-REFUNDABLE you will need to review the list of single documents found within the description for the Eviction Defense Collection. ************************************** In the meantime, we will be updating the individual file listings for all such affected documents. ************************************** HOWEVER, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED!

Directed verdict motion in California

by Stan Burman
Directed verdict motion in California.

A directed verdict motion in California is the topic of this blog post.

A directed verdict motion in California can only be used in a case involving a jury trial.

Statutory authorization for a directed verdict motion in California.

The statutory authorization for a a directed verdict motion in California is found in Code of Civil Procedure section 630 which states that,

“(a) Unless the court specified an earlier time for making a motion for directed verdict, after all parties have completed the presentation of all of their evidence in a trial by jury, any party may, without waiving his or her right to trial by jury in the event the motion is not granted, move for an order directing entry of a verdict in its favor.

(b) If it appears that the evidence presented supports the granting of the motion as to some, but not all, of the issues involved in the action, the court shall grant the motion as to those issues and the action shall proceed on any remaining issues. Despite the granting of such a motion, no final judgment shall be entered prior to the termination of the action, but the final judgment, in addition to any matter determined in the trial, shall reflect the verdict ordered by the court as determined by the motion for directed verdict.

(c) If the motion is granted, unless the court in its order directing entry of the verdict specifies otherwise, it shall operate as an adjudication upon the merits.

(d) In actions which arise out of an injury to a person or property, when a motion for directed verdict was granted on the basis that a defendant was without fault, no other defendant during trial, over plaintiff’s objection, shall attempt to attribute fault to or comment on the absence or involvement of the defendant who was granted the motion.

(e) The order of the court granting the motion for directed verdict is effective without any assent of the jury.

(f) When the jury for any reason has been discharged without having rendered a verdict, the court on its own motion or upon motion of a party, notice of which was given within 10 days after discharge of the jury, may order judgment to be entered in favor of a party whenever a motion for directed verdict for that party should have been granted had a previous motion been made. Except as otherwise provided in Section 12a, the power of the court to act under the provisions of this section shall expire 30 days after the day upon which the jury was discharged, and if judgment has not been ordered within that time the effect shall be the denial of any motion for judgment without further order of the court.”

A directed verdict motion is very similar to a motion for nonsuit in that the motion essentially operates as a demurrer to the evidence presented by the opposing party. Either motion will be granted if there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the claim or defense of the party opposing the motion. However, there are some differences between the two motions which are:

A directed verdict motion in California is generally used after all the parties have completed presentation of evidence in a jury trial although it may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. Nonsuit motions are usually made after the plaintiff's evidence is concluded.

Although typically filed by a defendant a directed verdict motion in California may also be brought by a plaintiff.

A directed verdict motion in California is used in order to achieve a judgment as a matter of law. The judgment requested would be in favor of one (or more) parties on all (or some) of the issues in that particular case. The motion is filed after all parties present their evidence and before the matter goes to the jury. The granting of the motion may dismiss a party or decide some (or all) of the issues before the matter goes to a jury. After entry of any judgment in accordance with a directed verdict, the prevailing party can recover its costs of suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1038.

However a directed verdict motion in California is only appropriate when it is clear from the evidence presented, that the party against whom the motion is made, typically a plaintiff or cross-complainant, cannot meet its burden of proof of elements of its claim against the moving party.

An appropriate example would be a case where there are multiple defendants and the plaintiff is unable to offer sufficient evidence of the identity of a particular party. Another appropriate example would be when one party believes that the opposing party has made a concession that mandates a result in the first party’s favor.

Note that a directed verdict motion in California can be filed even if a motion for nonsuit was previously denied by the court.

In ruling on a directed verdict motion in California, the court determines only whether there is no evidence to support a verdict against the moving party. On a directed verdict motion in California, the court's decision operates as an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise ordered by the court, however the jury must still render a verdict before the decision on the motion for directed verdict can be incorporated in the final judgment.

A California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that filing a directed verdict motion is proper when there is no conflict in the evidence, and substantial evidence supports a verdict in favor of the moving party.

Sample directed verdict motion in California for sale.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 14 page sample directed verdict motion in California including a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proposed order sold by the author can see below.

Sample California Motion for Directed Verdict under Code of Civil Procedure section 630 by Stan Burman on Scribd

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is and entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/legaldocspro

Like the Facebook page for Legaldocspro at:

https://www.facebook.com/LegalDocsPro/

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Back to Blog from LegalDocsPro