California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ada-Saucedo v. Pragmatic Commc'ns Sys., Inc., H038021 (Cal. App. 2013):
Plaintiff has shown no legal basis for overturning the adverse judgment entered on her first amended complaint. The court heard all the admissible evidence she had to present and found it insufficient to establish her claims. We therefore need not address defendants' extensive discussion of substantial evidence supporting the verdict on each cause of action. Not only has plaintiff not offered any appellate argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, but substantial evidence review is irrelevant in these procedural circumstances. As we have previously explained, "this test is typically implicated when a defendant contends that the plaintiff succeeded at trial in spite of insufficient evidence. In the case where the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that the party with the burden of proof did not carry the burden and that party appeals, it is misleading to characterize the failure-of-proof issue as whether substantial evidence supports the judgment." (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528; accord, Valero v. Board of Retirement of Tulare County Employees' Retirement Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 960, 966.) Here plaintiff simply failed to convince the trier of
Page 8
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.