BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1659
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 1659 (Chau) - As Amended: April 1, 2014
Proposed Consent
SUBJECT : CIVIL ACTIONS: POST-VERDICT MOTIONS
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE THREE MAIN POST-TRIAL MOTIONS (MOTION FOR
A NEW TRIAL, MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
(JNOV), AND MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT) HAVE A UNIFORM
BRIEFING SCHEDULE?
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill prudently seeks to conform the
filing deadlines and procedures for three post-trial motions -
motion for a new trial, motion for a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict (JNOV), and motion to vacate the judgment. Taking
lawyers back to law school, a motion for a new trial asks the
court to reexamine one or more issues of fact or law. A motion
for JNOV challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence at
trial. And a motion to vacate the judgment challenges a trial
judge's judgment for incorrect legal conclusion or erroneous
judgment upon the facts. Currently the deadlines for filing
these post-trial motions are inconsistent and may cause
unnecessary confusion to practitioners (and certainly to pro
pers representing themselves.) The changes proposed in this
bill helpfully align the deadlines for these three motions.
There is no known opposition to this bill.
SUMMARY : Sets a uniform briefing schedule for the motion for a
new trial, motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
(JNOV), and motion to vacate the judgment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the notice of intent to move for a new trial
must be served and filed either before the entry of judgment
or within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of
judgment. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 659.) Supporting
affidavits are due 10 days later, and any opposition or
counter-affidavits are due 10 days thereafter. The court sets
AB 1659
Page 2
the hearing date for the motion. (Code of Civil Procedure
Section 659(a).)
2)Provides that the notice of intent to move for a JNOV must be
served and filed either before the entry of judgment or within
15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment
along with its supporting papers. An opposition is due 9 days
before the hearing with a reply due 5 court days before. The
moving party sets the hearing date for the JNOV. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 661.)
3)Provides that a motion for JNOV and a motion for new trial
must be heard at the same time. (Code of Civil Procedure
Section 629.)
4)Provides that the notice of intent to vacate the judgment must
be served and filed within 15 days of the date of mailing
notice of entry. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 663.) The
motion has to be decided within the same 60 days from entry of
judgment. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 663(a).)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : Sponsored jointly by the California Defense Counsel
(CDC) and the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), this bill
seeks to set a uniform briefing schedule for three post-trial
motions -motion for a new trial, motion for JNOV, and motion to
vacate the judgment.
A motion for a new trial asks the court to reexamine one or more
issues of fact or law after a trial and decision by the judge or
jury. A party may ask for a new trial for jury misconduct,
insufficient evidence, excessive or inadequate damages, etc.
Currently, the notice of intent to move for a new trial must be
served and filed either before the entry of judgment, or within
15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment.
Supporting affidavits are due 10 days later, and any opposition
or counter-affidavits are due 10 days thereafter.
A motion for JNOV challenges the legal sufficiency of the
evidence at trial. The trial court may grant a JNOV only if the
verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. Statutorily,
a motion for JNOV and a motion for new trial have to be heard at
the same time, but the notice and briefing schedules are at
AB 1659
Page 3
odds. The notice of intent to move for a JNOV also must be
served and filed within the same 15-day window, but its
supporting papers have to be filed with the notice and an
opposition to a motion for JNOV is due 9 days before the hearing
with a reply due 5 court days before. However, often times the
same points are to be argued for the motion for JNOV and the
motion for a new trial.
A motion to vacate the judgment sets aside a judgment if there
is an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision. A
motion to vacate has the same notice deadline of 15 days after
notice of entry of judgment and has to be decided within the
same 60 days from entry of judgment.
A post-trial motion that is untimely brought can harm a party
and block their chance to appeal their case. These motions are
often made on the same grounds, but the deadlines for filing
these motions are confusing and inconsistent and result in
procedural muddle with numerous ex parte trips, by both the
moving and opposing parties, to the courthouse to negotiate the
hearing schedule.
This measure conforms the deadlines for these post-trial motions
in order to have a coordinated schedule that will simplify the
process for all parties to understand and meet those deadlines.
The three post-trial motions will keep the 15-day notice
deadline but adopt the following timeline for the subsequent
procedures: supporting memoranda and affidavits must be filed
within 10 days after notice, opposing memoranda and affidavits
must be filed 10 days thereafter, and any reply memoranda must
be filed 5 days after that time. This new scheme allots a total
of 40 days from the entry of judgment for parties to file their
post-trial motions and memoranda, which still allows the court
to rule on the motions within the statutorily mandated 60 days
from the entry of the judgment. The changes proposed in this
bill will be effective on January 1, 2015.
The co-sponsors of the bill state that "aligning these deadlines
will benefit the practice of law for all parties and will help
save court resources by minimizing the need for ex parte trips."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 1659
Page 4
California Defense Counsel
Consumer Attorneys of California
California Advocates, Inc.
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Ruth Yang / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334