James Harden is not quietly taking a Beverly Hills courtroom loss. The NBA star and a management company tied to a luxury rental are urging a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to toss out, or at least redo, a March 2025 jury verdict that hit Harden for fraud and roughly $1.35 million in damages. The post-trial papers, filed this week ahead of an Aug. 3 hearing, ask Judge Peter A. Hernandez to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, failing that, to order a new trial. At the center of the fight is a deceptively simple question about a 2019 rental agreement: did a seven-guest cap apply only to overnight occupants, or to everyone who set foot on the property during the day too?
According to MyNewsLA, Harden’s lawyers argue that "the jury therefore could find fraud only by disregarding uncontradicted testimony and speculating that defendants possessed knowledge they did not have," urging the court to set aside the verdict. The defense is seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a new trial, saying the record does not support a finding of malice, oppression or fraud that would justify punitive damages. In their telling, the clash looks more like a dry contract-interpretation dispute over guest limits than a calculated plan to dupe a homeowner.
Court filings show plaintiff George Santopietro filed suit in September 2019, alleging Harden wired about $82,200 for a weeklong stay and agreed to cap the group at seven adults. The complaint claims Harden instead hosted gatherings of more than 15 people, damaged the high-end property and strained the owner’s relationship with the homeowners association. The paperwork, including the rental agreement language, identifies a management company and its owner as co-defendants who were held partly responsible for compensatory damages at trial. Those original pleadings and related discovery sit in the public court file and framed much of what the jurors heard.
Jury verdict and damages
In March 2025 a Los Angeles County jury found Harden liable for fraud and awarded $900,000 in punitive damages, along with $450,000 in compensatory damages that were to be shared with the management company and its owner, according to legal reporting. The decision followed a relatively short stretch of deliberations and left Harden and his co-defendants on the hook for about $1.35 million overall. The same verdict is now under attack, with the defense asking Judge Hernandez either to wipe it out or to stage a new trial focused on the money.
Case history
The case, Santopietro v. Harden, case No. 19STCV32597, has been grinding through the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for years, generating a thick docket of demurrers, summary-adjudication motions and discovery battles. Tentative rulings and minute orders on those issues are part of the public record and feed directly into the arguments Harden’s side is pressing now. The fresh round of post-trial motions has been lodged with Judge Hernandez, who will decide what happens next.
Legal implications
Under California law, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted only in narrow situations where no reasonable jury could have reached the decision it did. A motion for a new trial is a slightly different tool and can be granted if a judge finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. California jury instructions and case law spell out what is required for punitive damages in particular, explaining that such awards depend on proof of malice, oppression or fraud. If Judge Hernandez rejects Harden’s bid, the defendants can take their fight to the Court of Appeal. If he grants JNOV or orders a new trial, Harden’s exposure could be sharply reduced or the question of damages could land back in the lap of a new jury.
The Aug. 3 hearing will put those options squarely on the table as the court weighs whether to disturb the jury’s findings. The case continues to draw interest, pairing celebrity litigation with the very local tensions that can come with short-term rentals and neighborhood rules in Los Angeles.
