Fear Not Law Articles: Wright v. Pope Auctions

Wright v

Wright v. Pope Auctions

Filed 1/19/07 Wright v. Pope Auctions CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CALVIN WRIGHT,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

POPE AUCTIONS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

E039284

(Super.Ct.No. SCVSS 110932)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. A. Rex Victor, Judge. Affirmed.

Cassing Law Office and Max Craig Cassing for Defendants and Appellants.

Brunick, McElhaney & Beckett and Steven K. Beckett for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

The simple facts of this case are that plaintiff Calvin Wright hired defendants Jack Pope and Pope's Antiques and Auctions, Inc. (Pope) to auction his personal property. The net profits from two auctions were $41,812.51 but Wright refused the proceeds when Pope tendered them to him.

Instead, Wright sued Pope for various causes of action, including breach of contract for damages of $258,000. After trial, the jury found in favor of Pope, rejecting Wright's claim for damages beyond the amount of the net proceeds. Subsequently, the trial court granted Wright's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and entered judgment in his favor for the unpaid $41,812.51.

We reject Pope's appeal, in which he tries to argue that Wright did not sue to recover $41,812.51 but instead sought other damages and lost on those claims. We agree with Wright and the trial court that the evidence demonstrated Wright was entitled to recover the actual net proceeds from the auction. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Wright's JNOV motion. We also reject the cross-appeal in which Wright seeks prejudgment interest. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

A trial court may grant a motion JNOV if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. (Tognazzini v. San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1057-1058.) Similarly, â€

Description	The simple facts of this case are that plaintiff hired defendants (Pope) to auction his personal property. The net profits from two auctions were $41,812.51 but plaintiff refused the proceeds when Pope tendered them to him. Instead, plaintiff sued Pope for various causes of action, including breach of contract for damages of $258,000. After trial, the jury found in favor of Pope, rejecting Plaintiff's claim for damages beyond the amount of the net proceeds. Subsequently, the trial court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and entered judgment in his favor for the unpaid $41,812.51. Court reject Pope's appeal, in which he tries to argue that Plaintiff did not sue to recover $41,812.51 but instead sought other damages and lost on those claims. Court agree with Plaintiff and the trial court that the evidence demonstrated Plaintiff was entitled to recover the actual net proceeds from the auction. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Plaintiff's JNOV motion. Court also reject the cross appeal in which Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest. Court affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.