Burlesci

Burlesci v. Petersen

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 1074·68 Cal. App. 4th 1062·80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 704·98 Daily Journal DAR 12975·39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1008
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1998A079373California2,105 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

After plaintiff Patsy R. Burlesci presented her evidence in an action for conversion, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, imposition of a constructive trust, and an accounting, the court granted nonsuit to defendant James Cummings. Burlesci appeals. We conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Burlesci’s claims, was sufficient to avoid a nonsuit on all causes of action except fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as to the latter claims, and otherwise reverse.

1. Standard of Review

A defendant is entitled to nonsuit if the trial court determines the evidence presented by the plaintiff is insufficient as a matter of law to permit a jury to find in her favor. The court may not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses. Instead, it must accept the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff as true and disregard conflicting evidence. The plaintiff’s evidence must be given all the value to which it is legally entitled, including every legitimate inference that may be drawn in the plaintiff’s favor. A mere “scintilla of evidence” is not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.