Julia Westerfield et al vs Jordana Snider et al

Case Number

24CV00431

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 07/30/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Judgment: Motion: New Trial

Tentative Ruling

Issue

Jordana’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

Jordana’s Motion for New Trial and/or to Strike the Verdict for Punitive Damages.

Ruling

Jordana’s Motions are DENIED.

Jordana’s Motion(s)

Jordana’s Motion for JNOV; 26 pages; filed 5/19/25; 26 pages; summarized: Jordana is entitled to judgment notwithstanding verdict on three of Julie’s causes of action:  (1) Julie’s Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, because no facts exist to support any fiduciary duty in relation to Julie’s gift of the Property to Jordana through the Gift Deed on February 10, 2023; (2) Julie’s Fifth Cause of Action for Constructive Fraud, because

this claim, too, is based on an alleged fiduciary duty for which no facts exist to support it; and (3) Julie’s Third Cause of Action for Financial Abuse of an Elder Who Lacks Capacity Under Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.6, on grounds that Julie failed to present competent evidence that Julie was an elder or dependent adult who lacked capacity under Section 812 of the Probate Code, or is of unsound mind, but not entirely without understanding, under Section 39 of the Civil Code.

Jordana’s Motion for a new trial and/or to strike the verdict for punitive damages; filed 5/19/25; 24 pages; summarized: Jordana is entitled to relief under section 657 of the California Code of Civil Procedure to vacate the verdict rendered by the jury and grant a new trial and/or strike the award for punitive damages on the following grounds.

(1) Under section 657(1), Jordana was prevented from having a fair trial, because Julie’s presence at trial allowed the jury to think Julie was adverse to Jordana.

(2) Under section 657(6), evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict on punitive

damages, because “clear and convincing evidence” did not exist that Jordana acted with fraud, malice, or oppression.

(3) Under section 657(7), error of law occurred when Dr. Robert Byers (“Byers”) gave expert opinion testimony without having been qualified as an expert under California

Evidence Code section 720, and when he failed to base his opinions on California Probate Code sections 6100.6, 810, 811, or 812, or on California Civil Code section 39.

(4) Under section 657(7), error of law occurred because the verdict form allowed for

inconsistent results and on legally deficient claims.

The Opposition(s)

Julie’s Opposition to Jordana’s motion for JNOV; filed 5/29/25; 12 pages; summarized: A judgment notwithstanding the verdict may only be granted if, after disregarding all conflicting evidence and drawing every reasonable inference in favor of the prevailing party, no substantial evidence supports the verdict. This is a stringent standard, and Jordana has not met it. The jury unanimously returned a general verdict in Julie’s favor, and Jordana does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence supporting all causes of action submitted to the jury. Jordana does not challenge the causes of action for undue influence, mistake, or financial abuse of and elder, each of which independently supports the verdict. As to the claims that Jordana does target, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Constructive Fraud, the Motion rests on a flawed legal theory regarding confidential relationships not existing in the absence of a formal fiduciary relationship. Jordana’s piecemeal attempt to invalidate only selected claims does not undermine the general verdict, which stands so long as any one theory of liability was legally sufficient and supported by substantial evidence.  Accordingly, because substantial evidence supports the general verdict and Jordana has failed to show that any cause of action was unsupported as a matter of law, the Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict should be denied.

Julie’s Opposition to Jordana’s Motion for a new trial and/or to strike the verdict for punitive damages; filed 5/29/25; 28 pages; summarized: After a full and fair trial, lasting several weeks, a unanimous verdict was rendered, and judgment was entered for Julie on all of Julie’s causes of action. Notably, Jordana does not argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict on all of Julie’s claims, except in connection with her argument concerning punitive damages. While the Court may consider other grounds raised in the motion, it is important to recognize that the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings is not seriously in dispute. The law strongly favors upholding jury verdicts, and even if any error had occurred (which Julie denies), it caused no prejudice or was harmless. Jordana has not established that every claim submitted to the jury was legally defective, and the general verdict must therefore stand. Moreover, the jury deliberated and quickly reached a unanimous verdict in favor of Julie. There is every reason to believe that a second jury would reach the same conclusion. Ordering a new trial under these circumstances would not only waste judicial resources, but it would also undermine the integrity of the jury system. Sixteen members of the community dedicated a full month of their lives to this proceeding. Disregarding their service without a compelling legal basis would be unjust. As set forth above, each of the grounds raised by Jordana is without merit. The motion for new trial should be denied in its entirety.

The Reply(s)

Jordana’s Reply to Julie’s Opposition to Jordana’s JNOV request; filed 7/23/25; 11 pages; summarized: Julie raises three arguments against Jordana’s motion for JNOV, none of which have merit.  First, Julie argues that a “confidential relationship” alone establishes claims for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.  It does not.  A relationship is not “confidential” if a third party is giving independent advice.  Second, Julie argues that because Jordana was “involved” in Julie’s gift of the Property to her, then a presumption of undue influence arises.  It does not.  No provision of the Probate Code, or case law, supports such a position.  Third, Julie argues that Jordana cannot obtain a partial JNOV in relation to a general jury verdict.  Case law says the exact opposite. In sum, Julie offers nothing to defeat Jordana’s motion for JNOV on Jordana’s Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action.  The Court should grant Jordana’s motion.

Jordana’s Reply to Julie’s Opposition to her Motion for a New Trial and/or to Strike the Verdict for Punitive Damages; filed 7/23/25:13 pages; summarized: Jordana’s Motion for a New Trial and/or to Strike Verdict for Punitive Damages presents this Court with two options.  First, the Court could order a new trial based on the prejudice Jordana encountered in (a) Julie’s presence at counsel’s table; (b) Dr. Byer’s unfounded expert opinion testimony; or (c) the defective jury verdict form.  Alternatively, the Court could strike the verdict award for punitive damages on grounds that Julie did not support a claim for punitive damages based on “clear and convincing evidence.”  Nothing in Julie’s Opposition should deter the Court from taking either approach.

                                                         The Court’s Conclusions

The Court has read and considered everything submitted. There was good work done by the lawyers on these motions. Although the rulings are adverse to Jordana’s cause the Court finds her lawyers were exceptionally articulate.

Jordana was not prevented from having a fair trial, because of Julie’s presence at trial. The claim that it allowed the jury to think Julie was adverse to Jordana is speculative at best. Julie had every right to attend the trial. Indeed, it appeared entirely proper, and her absence would have been detrimental to her cause. The fact that she suffers from dementia was never a surprise to anyone. The defense had an adequate opportunity to make such an argument to the jury if it believed that was appropriate.

The evidence was clearly sufficient to justify a verdict on punitive damages. The jury found the evidence “clear and convincing evidence” that Jordana acted with fraud, malice, or oppression. Jordana’s lawyer argued clearly on that issue and the Court found his argument exceptionally well formulated and well explained. The jury simply found otherwise.

No error of law occurred when Dr. Robert Byers gave his expert opinion testimony. The claim he did not base his opinions on California Probate Code or on California Civil was not disqualifying. He presented very well in the courtroom and his testimony was creditable and believable. Jordana’s lawyer presented her case on the issue very well and the Court was impressed with his courtroom demeanor and his argument on all issues and certainly on this one.  The jury simply found otherwise.

Under section 657(7), no error of law occurred because of the verdict form. The Court repeatedly asked Jordana’s lawyers and Julie’s lawyers for a clear comprehensive sensible jury verdict form and neither side presented one that was even slightly acceptable. The Court’s efforts on this task began well before trial when it asked for those forms to be submitted. The verdict form the Court finally elected was reviewed in depth with the lawyers and they had it well in advance of closing argument. They showed it to the jury on the courtroom screen and argued their respective case. The Court was impressed with the clarity the defense attorney brought to the form. The jury simply found otherwise.

Jordana’s JNOV request has no merit, and the Court is not inclined to embrace the arguments made.

The Court repeats what it has said before; the case was exceptionally well lawyered.