11
A directed verdict can be granted only when “the court . . . determines there is no
evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the claim or defense of the party opposing the
motion . . . .” (Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621, 629–630.)
“The rules for reviewing a directed verdict are fairly strict. ‘“A motion for a directed
verdict ‘is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and is governed by practically the same
rules, and concedes as true the evidence on behalf of the adverse party, with all fair and
reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom.’”’ [Citation.] ‘“‘In determining whether [the
evidence of the party opposing a directed verdict] is sufficient, the court may not weigh the
evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses. Instead, the evidence most favorable to [the
party opposing a directed verdict] must be accepted as true and conflicting evidence must be
disregarded. . . .’”’ [Citation.]” (O’Shea v. Lindenberg (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 228, 235.)
“Unless it can be said that, as a matter of law, no other reasonable conclusion is legally
deducible from the evidence, and that any other holding would be so lacking in evidentiary
support that an appellate court would be impelled to reverse it upon appeal or a trial court set it
aside, a court is not justified in taking a case from a jury and itself rendering the decision.”
(Hunt v. United Bank & Trust Co. (1930) 210 Cal. 108, 117; see also Hauter v. Zogarts (1975)
14 Cal.3d 104, 110 [“If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be
drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied”].)
The Issues Presented
The case turns on the interpretation of the domestic violence affirmative defense statute,
with regard to what it means for the termination of a tenancy to be “based upon an act or acts
against a tenant . . . that constitute domestic violence” (§ 1161.3, subd. (a)), and the sufficiency
of the requisite documentation provided in a police report (§ 1161.3, subd. (a)(1)(B)).
Although the court did not allow the affirmative defense to be presented as to Will,
based on Will being a tenant when the violence occurred (see § 1161.3, subd. (a)(2)), we do not
determine if the court erred in this regard. Because there was no evidence the domestic
violence inflicted by Will (drawing a knife in December 2018 leading to defendant getting an
emergency protective order followed by a restraining order) formed any part of the reasons for