Page 1
Statute Permits Judgment for Defendants Where Plaintiff Puts on No Case—C.A.
Judge Relied on CCP §631.8(a) Which Requires the Completion of Party’s Presentation of Evidence at ‘Trial’; Opinion Says, Under Circumstances, Requisites of Statute Were Met
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a judge did not err in ordering entry of judgment for the defendants pursuant to a Code of Civil Procedure section that applies only after the completion of a party’s presentation of evidence at a court trial, although the plaintiff, who contested the jurisdiction of the court, did not put on a case.
When defendants Sheila Zamucen and Eric Zamucen asked for a dismissal “on the grounds of lack of evidence, ” Orange Superior Court Judge Kimberly A. Knill construed that as a motion under §631.8(a) which says, in part:
“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. The court as trier of the facts shall weigh the evidence and may render a judgment in favor of the moving party….”
Plaintiff’s Contention
Protesting entry of judgment against it, plaintiff I.S. Investments LLC maintained that Knill improperly invoked that provision. As I.S. sized up, in its opening brief, what occurred:
“On the afternoon of October 2, 2023, in chambers and with no parties or attorneys present, and even though no witnesses were called, no exhibits were offered and no opening statements were made, the court granted a sua sponte motion for judgment pursuant to Section 631.8(a).”
It insisted that Knill “committed reversible error” by granting a judgment based on an inapplicable code section.
In its reply brief, I.S. asserted:
“Section 631.8(a) cannot be invoked until the plaintiff has ‘completed his presentation of evidence in a ‘trial’ by the court. Here, Plaintiff never started the presentation of evidence and Respondents do not dispute that trial had not yet commenced. Moreover, Section 631.8(a) requires the court to “weigh the evidence,” but here there was nothing to weigh. For these reasons, the prerequisites for the lower court’s authority to invoke Section 631.8(a) did not exist.”
He added:
“ Section 631.8(a) is not some all-purpose statute that a judge can use for any occasion. It has very specific provisions, and it can only be used at a very specific time. Indeed, trial never started, meaning Section 631.8(a) could not be used.”
Motoike’s Opinion
Rejecting the contentions, Acting Presiding Justice Joanne Motoike wrote in her unpublished opinion:
“We need not look beyond the statutory language to address I.S. Investments’ arguments. Section 631.8 applies ‘[a]fter a party has completed his presentation of evidence in a trial by the court[.]’….That language does not require a plaintiff to have actually presented some amount of evidence at trial as a prerequisite. Instead, the language covers the scenario where, as here, a plaintiff declines to present any evidence at trial when offered the opportunity. In that scenario, the plaintiff ‘has completed his presentation of evidence in a trial by the court’ for purposes of section 631.8, and it is simply the case that the plaintiffs ‘presentation of evidence’ amounted to nothing. Similarly, the statute’s requirement for the trial court to ‘weigh the evidence’ would also apply to a scenario where the plaintiff chooses not to present evidence—i.e., the trial court weighs the plaintiffs evidence, which is none. Thus, section 631.8 is applicable here when I.S. Investments decided not to present an opening statement, any evidence, or witnesses at the bench trial.”
The justice continued:
“We also disagree with I.S. Investments’ contention that no ‘trial’ had started for purposes of section 631.8. While section 631.8 does not define ‘trial,’ we conclude the plain meaning of a ‘trial’ as used in section 631.8 includes what occurred here. On the day set for trial by the trial court, I.S. Investments had the opportunity to make its opening statement and present evidence. But I.S. Investments refused to do so, instead choosing to repeat its jurisdictional argument. The trial court then asked Sheila and Eric whether they had a motion and the trial court granted judgment under section 631.8. This specific sequence of events constituted a bench ‘trial’ for purposes of section 631.8. That I.S. Investments chose not to present evidence during its portion of the trial does not mean no trial occurred here. If that were the case, a plaintiff would have ultimate control over when a bench trial begins simply by declining to participate.”
On appeal, I.S. did not rely on the lack-of-jurisdiction theory it put forth in the trial court.
The case is I.S. Investments v. Zamucen, G063196.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company