Bush v. Twins Auto Sales

<h1>Bush v. Twins Auto Sales</h1> <h2>Filed 2/23/06 Bush v. Twins Auto Sales CA2/1</h2> NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="319" valign="top"> DORETHA BUSH, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. TWINS AUTO SALES et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents; ICHA MARIE WILLIAMS, Cross-defendant and and Appellant. </td> <td width="319" valign="top"> B180896 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MC012918) </td> </tr> </table> APPEAL from an order of the <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County</a>, Alan S. Rosenfield, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Scott J. Seiden for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, and Cross-defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Ira N. Katz and Ira N. Katz for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. _________________________________ We reverse a trial court's <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">sua sponte</a> order granting a new trial, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND In June 2000, Doretha Bush bought (and financed) a Cadillac from Twins Auto Sales (which is owned by Dennis Ablakhad, who is included in our subsequent references to Twins Auto). In July, Bush and her daughter (Icha Williams) bought (and financed) a Dodge Intrepid from Twins Auto, and <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">pledged</a> the Cadillac as <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">security for the payments</a> due on the Dodge. When Bush and Williams failed to make the payments due on the Dodge, Twins Auto repossessed the Cadillac. In September 2001, Bush (in <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">propria persona</a>) sued Twins Auto. Twins Auto answered and <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">cross-complained</a> against Bush and Williams for breach of contract, fraud, and conversion. Bush and Williams retained <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">counsel</a> and answered the cross-complaint, and Bush amended her complaint to allege several causes of action (including <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">breach of contract, conversion, improper impounding, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress</a>). The dispute was tried to a jury, which (during deliberations) submitted at least three questions about the verdict forms. The trial court found the forms were inaccurate and confusing, made corrections, and tried to provide explanations to the jury. Ultimately, the jury reached verdicts on Twins Auto's claims and on some but not all of Bush's claims, and the court declared a mistrial on Bush's remaining claims.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The jury was excused, and a date was set for post-trial motions. Bush and Williams filed a <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">motion for judgment</a> notwithstanding the verdict, claiming the verdicts for Twins Auto were not supported by sufficient evidence or by the law. No one filed a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">motion for a new tria</a>l. At the hearing on the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court ruled as follows: â€