California Court of Appeal

In suit over investment losses, orders granting new trial after verdict for plaintiffs unless plaintiffs consented to a substantial reduction in damages, and denying motions for JNOV by both parties, are affirmed over plaintiffs' claims that: 1) the ordinary standard of review for orders on a motion for new trial does not apply, but, reversal is required even if the ruling is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; 2) the order granting a new trial was in reality a partial JNOV; and 3) the court had the power to grant plaintiffs' motion for partial JNOV. There was sufficient evidence supporting the jury-s determination defendant breached an indenture agreement and plaintiffs suffered resulting damages, and the court properly denied defendant's motion for JNOV, but the court erred in awarding costs to plaintiffs.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/29/2008
• Published 01/29/2008

Judges

• STEIN, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, Ethan P. Schulman, Eric S. Pettit, Law Offices of George Donaldson, George Donaldson, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Vincent P. Finigan, Jr., Brett M. Schuman, Robert A. Bailey, Umung Varma, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant.