Olvera v. Ruiz

MA GUADALUPE OLVERA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ENRIQUE CASTILLO RUIZ et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D068875

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

January 27, 2017

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. ECU07709)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Brooks L. Anderholt, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Gary A. Dordick and Gary A. Dordick, Douglas Shaffer, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Horton, Oberrecht, Kirkpatrick & Martha and Kimberly S. Oberrecht, Carolyn A. Mush, for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs and appellants Ma Guadalupe Olvera and her children¹ filed a personal injury and wrongful death action against defendants and respondents Enrique Castillo Ruiz, Maria S. Castillo individually and doing business as E&M Castillos Transport, and Castillo Transport, following the death of Ma's husband Jose Gonzalez Hernandez (Gonzalez) that occurred when Enrique Castillo's tractor-trailer collided with Gonzalez's vehicle. The matter proceeded to a jury trial in which the jury found both parties negligent and apportioned 42.5 percent of the fault to defendants but awarded plaintiffs zero damages. Thereafter, the trial court conditionally granted defendants' motion for a new trial with an additur, determining plaintiffs' wrongful death damages were $121,125 after being reduced based on the jury's liability apportionment. Plaintiffs appeal, contending (1) the trial court issued an insufficient specification of reasons in granting a conditional new trial, requiring reversal of the order and reinstatement of the judgment; and (2) the award of zero damages is insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiffs further contend that if the judgment is not reversed, a new trial on damages is required because additur was either inapplicable or an abuse of discretion. Finally, plaintiffs contend that assuming the new trial order is valid, the additur is inadequate as a matter of law. They ask us to remand the matter for a retrial on damages. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the morning of March 9, 2012, Enrique Castillo, a commercial truck driver, was driving a tractor trailer along a straight section of California State Route 86 after picking up a load in Fontana. He was using cruise control at the time. The sun had broken and visibility was clear when at about 6:25 a.m., Castillo impacted the rear of a pickup truck driven by then 63-year-old Gonzalez. At the time of the impact, Gonzalez's vehicle was entirely within the number two lane of the highway. Castillo had had about two hours of sleep before leaving Fontana.

Plaintiffs filed a personal injury and wrongful death lawsuit against defendants alleging a cause of action for negligence. The matter was tried to a jury in two phases: liability and damages. As to liability, the jury returned a special verdict finding both Castillo and Gonzalez negligent and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm. It assigned Castillo 42.5 and Gonzalez 57.5 percent responsibility. During the damages phase, the jury heard evidence as to the losses suffered due to Gonzalez's death through testimony by Ma, Benjamin, Arnulfo, Veronica, Juana and Evangelina. At the time of trial, Ma and the children lived where they grew up: La Poza Corregidora Queretaro, a small rural town in Mexico. There, Ma and Gonzalez maintained animals and crops to feed the family, and from a young age the children either helped plant the land with their father or followed along while he planted. In 1986 or 1987, when the children were very young, Gonzalez came to the United States to work, eventually getting a job climbing palm trees at a date farm in La Quinta, California. He would return to La Poza for periods of time, and also came to La Poza for weddings,holidays and other special occasions.² During his time in the United States, Gonzalez stayed in touch with the family via letters.

The court instructed the jury that plaintiffs were not seeking to recover economic damages for Gonzalez's financial support, loss of gifts or benefits, funeral expenses, or the reasonable value of his household services. The court instructed, and counsel made clear in their closing arguments, that plaintiffs sought only noneconomic damages: the loss of Gonzalez's love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, moral support, training and guidance, or sexual relations as to Ma.³ The jury was additionally instructed that Gonzalez's life expectancy was 19.8 years. The court instructed the jury not to consider plaintiffs' grief, sorrow, or mental anguish; decedent's pain and suffering; or plaintiffs' poverty or wealth in making its award. It instructed the jury not to include any damages to punish the defendants.

Following the damages phase, the jury awarded plaintiffs zero noneconomic damages.

Plaintiffs moved for a new trial on damages, arguing the award of zero damages was inadequate as a matter of law and the evidence insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In opposition, defendants pointed out in part that five of the plaintiffs chose not to testify at trial, and that Ma had stated in discovery that during the last five years of his life, Gonzalez's residence was in La Quinta, California. They argued that given the absence of evidence of any recent ongoing relationship between Gonzalez and his family, it was within reason for the jury to find the family did not meet their burden of proof on damages and award nothing. Defendants characterized the plaintiffs' testimony about their relationship with Gonzalez as vague, uncertain and conflicting. They argued that if the court did not grant a new trial on all issues, it should issue an additur.

The trial court conditionally granted plaintiffs a new trial on the stated ground of inadequate damages. It determined that damages for plaintiffs' wrongful death claim was $285,000, then reduced that amount by the jury's liability apportionment to $121,125 and gave defendants time to accept or reject the added damages or have a new trial on damages. Defendants consented to the additur. The court thereafter entered an amended judgment on special verdict in plaintiffs' favor in the amount of $121,125.

Plaintiffs filed this appeal.⁴

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Principles and Standard of Review

"The authority of a trial court in this state to grant a new trial is established and circumscribed by statute." (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624, 633; Montoya v. Barragan (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227.) Code of Civil Procedure⁵ section 657 identifies seven grounds for a new trial motion, including, as relevant here, excessive or inadequate damages and insufficiency of the evidence. (Ibid.)

If the court grants a new trial motion, "additional requirements are imposed by statute. . . . [S]ection 657 provides that whenever the motion is granted 'the court shall specify the ground or grounds upon which it is granted and the court's reason or reasons for granting the new trial . . . .' The section goes on, however, to distinguish between grounds and reasons. While the order passing upon and determining the motion 'must state the ground or grounds relied upon by the court,' the order 'may contain the specification of reasons.' . . . If the order stating the grounds does not also specify the reasons for the new trial, then 'the court must, within 10 days after filing such order, prepare, sign and file such specification of reasons in writing with the clerk.' Thus, under section 657, the grounds for the new trial must be stated in the order. The reasons may also be stated in the order, but the trial court has the option of filing a statement of the reasons at a later time." (Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America (1985) 38 Cal.3d 892, 899.)Further, the court must prepare the statement of grounds or specification of reasons (§ 657; Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 113), which " 'must be the product of the judge's mental processes and not that of the attorney for the moving party.' " (Eltolad Music, Inc. v. April Music, Inc. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 697, 707.)

"California courts have consistently required strict compliance with section 657 . . . . Substantial compliance with the statute is not sufficient." (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 634; Linhart v. Nelson (1976) 18 Cal.3d 641, 644.) A new trial order in violation of statutory procedures will be void as in excess of jurisdiction. (Neal v. Montgomery Elevator Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198.)

We review the trial court's order granting a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages under the abuse of discretion standard. (Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 405, 411-412; Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 387; see Mercer v. Perez, supra, 68 Cal.2d at pp. 112-113.) On appeal, we reverse " 'only if there is no substantial basis in the record for any of such reasons.' " (Lane, at p. 412, italics omitted.) Thus, we must sustain the order unless the opposing party demonstrates that no reasonable finder of fact could have found for the movant on the trial court's theory. (Ibid.) "So long as a reasonable or even fairly debatable justification under the law is shown for the order" it will not be set aside. (Jiminez, at p. 387.) "Moreover, '[a]n abuse of discretion cannot be found in cases in which the evidence is in conflict and a verdict for the moving party could have been reached . . . .' [Citation.] In other words, 'the presumption of correctness normally accorded on appeal to the jury's...