Saraniti v. Halligan

Filed 5/10/06 Saraniti v. Halligan CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Plaintiff Victor Saraniti sued defendant Joseph Halligan and others for breach of contract and related causes of action. A jury awarded plaintiff approximately $25,000 from defendant. On appeal from the judgment, defendant challenges (1) an order denying him a continuance of the trial date, (2) an evidentiary ruling, and (3) posttrial orders that denied motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.[1] He also contends that judicial prejudice toward him denied him a fair and impartial trial. We affirm the judgment.

background

Plaintiff contracted to buy a controlling interest in a corporation that operated a restaurant business by purchasing one-third of the stock from defendant and one-third of the stock from another. In reliance, he spent money to facilitate the purchase. The transaction failed because the corporation's liquor license was restricted so that it could not be transferred to plaintiff. Defendant had failed to disclose this fact in the purchase contract. This litigation ensued.

discussion

Consideration of defendant's challenge to the trial court's rulings requires us to examine defendant's (1) request for a trial continuance and the accompanying reasons advanced for and against it, (2) evidentiary objection and the trial court's basis for overruling it, and (3) motion for a new trial and the trial court's reasons for denying it. Insofar as defendant claims error from judicial prejudice, we need to make â€