Filed 12/12/22 Tucker v. Zinna CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

BENJAMIN TUCKER et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

MICHAEL LEONARD ZINNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B294366

 Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC652127

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Barbara Ann Meiers, Judge. Affirmed.

Ferguson Case Orr Paterson and John A. Hribar for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Zarmi Law and David Zarmi for Plaintiffs and 

Respondents.

____________________
2

After a bench trial, the trial court awarded actual damages 

of $285,000 and punitive damages of $152,000 for plaintiff 

Benjamin Tucker and against defendant Michael Zinna.

Zinna’s first ground of appeal is that Tucker gave “false 

testimony” on the topic of actual damages. Zinna maintains no 

substantial evidence supports the $285,000 damage award 

because Tucker lied on the stand and the trial court mistakenly 

believed Tucker. Zinna repeatedly asserts Tucker’s testimony—

that others had loaned Tucker this money, which Zinna then lost 

in a business venture—was “obviously false.” Zinna lost money 

belonging to third parties, not to Tucker, so giving Tucker the 

award was improper, Zinna argues. 

Zinna agrees the substantial evidence standard governs 

this question but misconceives the nature of this standard. In a 

bench trial, the trial court is the sole judge of witness credibility. 

Its determinations of witnesses’ veracity are final. (People v. 

Johnson & Johnson (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 295, 335.) The trial 

court accepted Tucker’s credibility. We reject Zinna’s request to 

reevaluate witness credibility. 

Zinna next challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion 

for a new trial, which Zinna says we review for an abuse of 

discretion. The basis for Zinna’s motion was his posttrial

discovery of certain documents he claims would have been 

important in the trial.

Zinna appears to concede that these documents were from 

2016, that he knew about the documents before the trial, that the 

other side also knew about them, and that Zinna at one time had 

these documents on his computer. 

Zinna argues he lost his computer copies because of 

cyberattacks in 2016. Zinna blames the other side for these 
3

attacks, but it is unclear whether he presented this factual claim 

to the trial court. In any event, the trial court never endorsed 

this factual theory, and we are in no position to adjudicate it.

Zinna then explains that, after trial, he found paper copies 

of these documents at the house of his “ex-girlfriend.” The trial 

was in August of 2018. Zinna states he was living and storing 

documents in this person’s home in 2017. But then “the 

relationship ended in June 2017” and she barred Zinna from the 

house. After trial, however, she let Zinna back in and he found 

the documents in a bag. Zinna submits this factual showing 

proves he was diligent and the trial court abused its discretion by 

rejecting his account.

Zinna does not explain why he never sought to obtain these 

supposedly vital documents from the other side.

The trial court evidently rejected Zinna’s account. This was 

not an abuse of discretion. Fact finders may disbelieve belated 

and elaborate but incomplete explanations.

Zinna’s third attack is on the punitive damage award 

against him in the sum of $152,000. The argument is the other 

side never established Zinna’s ability to pay this sum. The trial 

court, however, relied on Zinna’s testimony about a $500,000 

judgment in his favor in a Colorado court. Zinna’s testimony did 

not suggest this sum was unreal. This attack is unsuccessful.
4

DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment and award costs to the 

respondents.

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

STRATTON, P. J. 

GRIMES, J.