July 2019 Defense Verdict
July 2019 - Straus Meyers, LLP is pleased to announce a defense verdict attained by trial attorney Chase Goodman. The verdict comes after Defendant offered a statutory offer to settle (CCP998 Offer) for a very reasonable sum. After not accepting the offer, Plaintiff failed to obtain a more favorable result at trial, specifically, $0.00 thereby entitling defendants to costs.
Another Defense Verdict for Straus Meyers, LLP in 2019
We are halfway into 2019 and Straus Meyers, LLP has scored another defense verdict. In the hours before trial, defense agreed to accept opposing counsel’s previous offer to settle. However, the offer was rejected and, in fact, met with an increased demand. Trial proceeded accordingly. Although liability was adverse and the “intoxicated” defendant was alleged to have intentionally struck plaintiff’s vehicle, the Court ultimately found in defendant’s favor. According to trial counsel Marvin Straus, not only is it important to understand all of your defenses, it is just as critical to understand plaintiff’s burden of proof and the necessary evidence required to meet that burden. A motion for judgment was timely made and ultimately granted pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, section 631.8.
Trial Update: The Power of California Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8
California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 631.8 is a rarely used, but powerful trial tool, that provides, “after a party has completed his presentation of evidence in a trial by the court, the other party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in support of his defense or in rebuttal in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a judgment.” Additionally, this section allows a party to attack some but not all issues in the case, “[i]f it appears that the evidence presented supports the granting of the motion as to some but not all the issues involved in the action, the court shall grant the motion as to those issues and the action shall proceed as to the issues remaining.” This tool was recently utilized by partner Marvin Straus in a civil trial held in Los Angeles, California. After plaintiff presented his case, a motion for judgment was requested but rejected by the court. During cross-examination, the defense carefully balanced providing enough evidence as possible to attack the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, while at the same time being mindful that too much information would “open the door” to evidence that could undermine a later CCP 631.8 request. After the cross-examination of the Plaintiff, the defense asked the court again to be heard pursuant to CCP 631.8. The court granted Mr. Straus’ request to be heard. After oral argument, the court granted several motions including the outright dismissal with prejudice of one of the defendants, the dismissal of any and all claims for property damage, as well as, the dismissal of any claim for special damages. The motions made and results:
Motion for judgment to dismiss entire action against defendant. Granted.
Motion for judgment to dismiss property damage claims. Granted.
Motion for judgment to dismiss any award of medical specials. Granted.
