BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 1659 (Chau)
As Amended April 1, 2014
Hearing Date: June 17, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Civil Actions: Post-Verdict Motions
DESCRIPTION
This bill would increase uniformity between the timelines for
three different post-verdict motions: a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); a motion for a new trial;
and a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment.
BACKGROUND
As a matter of law, the time for making a motion depends on the
nature of the motion and the relief sought. Certain motions,
such as motions for change of venue, should be made at the
earliest opportunity. (44 Cal. Jur. Motion Procedure Sec. 8.)
Other motions, such as motions for a new trial, are necessarily
made after judgment has been rendered. Generally, once a
judgment has been entered, the trial court loses its
unrestricted power to change that judgment. For example, while
the court retains power to correct clerical errors in a judgment
that has been entered, it may not amend such a judgment to
substantially modify it or materially alter the rights of the
parties under its authority to correct clerical error. The
trial court does, however, retain jurisdiction for a limited
period of time to entertain and grant a motion for a new trial,
a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or a
motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter a different
judgment where there was an incorrect or erroneous legal basis
for the decision, not consistent with or supported by the facts,
or a judgment not consistent with or not supported by a special
verdict, among other things. (40A Cal. Jur. Judgments Sec.
(more)
AB 1659 (Chau)
Page 2 of ?
244.)
The Code of Civil Procedure generally sets timelines and
procedures for the making and consideration of each of the above
motions. If a motion is not filed and served within those
timeframes, it can be either premature or overdue; either way,
the court would lack jurisdiction to consider and grant the
motion. Sponsored by both the California Defense Council and the
Consumer Attorneys of California, this bill seeks to bring
uniformity to the timeliness and procedures for filings and
service of documents relating to these post-verdict motions so
as to reduce confusion for the parties and promote the efficient
use of court resources.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law requires, among other things, a party
intending to move for a new trial to file with the clerk and
serve upon each adverse party a notice of intention to move
for a new trial, designating the grounds upon which the motion
will be made and whether the same will be made upon affidavits
or the minutes of the court, or both, either:
after the decision is rendered and before entry of the
judgment; or
within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of
judgment by the clerk of the court, as specified, or
service upon him by any party of written notice of entry of
judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment,
whichever is earliest; provided, that upon the filing of
the first notice of intention to move for a new trial by a
party, each other party shall have 15 days after the
service of notice upon him to file an serve a notice of
intention to move for a new trial. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.
659.)
Existing law , among other things, provides the following:
the power of a court to rule on a motion for a new trial
expires 60 days from the mailing of notice of entry of
judgment by the court clerk, or 60 days after service on
the moving party by any party of written notice of entry of
the judgment, whichever is earlier, or if that notice has
not been given, then 60 days after filing the first notice
of intention to move to set aside and vacate the judgment;
if the motion is not determined within the specified
periods, the effect shall be a denial of the motion without
AB 1659 (Chau)
Page 3 of ?
further order of the court;
a motion for a new trial is not determined until an
order ruling on the motion is (1) entered in the permanent
minutes of the court or (2) signed by the judge and filed
with the clerk;
the entry of a new trial order in the permanent minutes
of the court shall constitute a determination of the motion
even though such minute order as entered expressly directs
that a written order be prepared, signed and filed; and
the minute entry in all cases must show the date on
which the order actually is entered in the permanent
minutes, but provides that failure to comply with this
direction shall not impair the validity or effectiveness of
the order. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 660.)
Existing law provides, within 10 days of filing a notice for a
new trial, the moving party shall serve upon all other parties
and file any affidavits intended to be used upon such motion.
Such other parties shall have 10 days after such service
within which to serve upon the moving party and file
counter-affidavits. The time herein specified may, for good
cause shown by affidavit or by written stipulation of the
parties, be extended by any judge for an additional period of
not exceeding 20 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 659a.)
This bill would, instead, provide, within 10 days of filing
the notice, the moving party shall serve upon all other
parties and file any brief and accompanying documents,
including affidavits in support of the motion. The other
parties shall have 10 days after that service within which to
serve upon the moving party and file any opposing briefs and
accompanying documents, including counter-affidavits. The
moving party shall have five days after that service to file
any reply brief and accompanying documents. These deadlines
may, for good cause shown by affidavit or by written
stipulation of the parties, be extended by any judge for an
additional period not to exceed 10 days.
2. Existing law , in relevant part, requires that a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) be made within the
period specified for the filing and serving of notice of
intention to move for a new trial. Existing law provides that
the making of a JNOV motion shall not extend the time within
which a party may file and serve notice of intention to move
for a new trial. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 629.)
AB 1659 (Chau)
Page 4 of ?
This bill would add that the moving, opposing, and reply
briefs and any accompanying documents for a JNOV motion shall
be filed and served within the periods specified for a motion
for a new trial (as proposed to be amended by this bill,
above) and would add that the hearing on the JNOV motion shall
be set in the same manner as the hearing on a motion for new
trial.
3. Existing law sets the timing and procedures to file a
motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and for a court to
rule upon that motion. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 663a.)
This bill would add that the moving, opposing, and reply
briefs and any accompanying documents for a motion to set
aside and vacate a judgment shall be filed and served within
the periods specified for a motion for a new trial (as
proposed to be amended by this bill), and would add that the
hearing on the motion for a motion to set aside and vacate a
judgment shall be set in the same manner as the hearing on a
motion for new trial.
This bill would also make other nonsubstantive and technical
changes.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 1659 will set a uniform briefing schedule for post-trial
motions. Currently, the deadlines for filing post-trial
motions are inconsistent and cause confusion to practitioners.
Post-trial motions refer to motions for a new trial, judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and motions to vacate the
judgment.
[ . . . ]
These motions are vital to civil litigation practice and the
inconsistency in deadlines result in procedural difficulties
by requiring practitioners to make numerous ex parte trips to
the courthouse to work out scheduling.
Given the importance of these motions and the budgetary
constraints our courts face, conforming these deadlines will
AB 1659 (Chau)
Page 5 of ?
benefit the practice of law for all parties and will help save
court resources by minimizing the need for ex parte trips.
AB 1659 will make scheduling more efficient for attorneys and
the courts by simplifying and streamlining the deadlines for
filing a motion for a new trial, a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and a motion to vacate the
judgment.
Consumer Attorneys of California, a co-sponsor of this bill,
writes that "AB 1659 is a non-controversial, procedural measure
that will set a uniform briefing schedule for certain post trial
motions," noting that, currently, "post trial motions are
complex and intricate and laden with jurisdictional pitfalls."
The California Defense Council, also a co-sponsor of this bill,
adds that aligning the deadlines for these three post-trial
motions "will simplify practice to the benefit of lawyers,
litigants, and the courts."
2. Harmonizing deadlines reduces confusion, and saves court
resources
This bill seeks to bring uniformity throughout the various
sections governing timelines and procedures to make post-verdict
motions in order to reduce confusion for the parties and save
court resources. These post-verdict motions are: (1) a motion
for a judgment notwithstanding a verdict (JNOV); (2) a motion
for a new trial; and (3) a motion to set aside and vacate a
judgment.
With respect to a JNOV motion, a party is entitled to JNOV only
if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict and
the evidence compels a judgment for the moving party (the party
making the motion for a JNOV) as a matter of law. In other
words, a JNOV may be sustained only when it can be said as a
matter of law that no other reasonable conclusion is legally
deducible from the evidence and that any other holding would be
so lacking in evidentiary support that the reviewing court would
be compelled to reverse it, or the trial court would be
compelled to set it aside as a matter of law. (40A Cal. Jur.
Judgments Sec. 93; see Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 629)
Where a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court
after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee is
sought, an aggrieved party may make a motion for a new trial.
Upon application of the aggrieved party, a verdict may be
AB 1659 (Chau)
Page 6 of ?
vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in
whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or
part of the issues, for specified causes materially affecting
the substantial rights of that party-such as, misconduct of the
jury; newly discovered evidence that is material for the party
making the application and which the aggrieved party could not,
with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced at the
trial; or an error in law. (See Code Civ. Proc. Secs. 656,
657.)
A third post-verdict motion may also be made by an aggrieved
party to set aside and vacate a judgment or decree based upon a
decision by the court, or special verdict of a jury, where there
has been either: (1) an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for a
decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts, or
(2) a judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by
the special verdict, if either of those occurrences materially
affected the substantial rights of the party and entitled the
party to a different judgment. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 663.)
The author asserts:
Currently, the statutory procedures for [such] post-judgment
motions are at odds. The deadlines for filing a motion for a
new trial, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
("JNOV") and a motion to vacate the judgment are inconsistent
and cause confusion to practitioners. Given the importance of
these motions, defense lawyers and plaintiffs' lawyers agree
that conforming 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.
These motions are vital to civil litigation practice. 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 a
procedural muddle with numerous ex parte trips (for both
parties, moving and opposing) to the courthouse to try to get
scheduling worked out. For example, the motion for a new trial
has so many procedural traps that one former California
Supreme Court justice called it a "jurisdictional minefield."
Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of Am. (1985) 38 Cal.3d. 892, 911 (Kaus,
J. dissenting.) Given the budgetary constraints the courts
are already facing, these ex parte trips are entirely
AB 1659 (Chau)
Page 7 of ?
unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time.
The Judicial Council agrees with this assessment, writing in
support of the bill that "[c]onforming the deadlines and
procedures for these post-trial motions will make it easier for
the parties to follow, which should help conserve judicial
resources by minimizing the need for ex parte proceedings."
Staff notes that these changes appear to have no bearing on the
right or ability of a party to make a particular motion, but
rather help clarify and streamline the timelines and procedures
for making and ruling upon such motions. For example, the bill
would incorporate the timelines for the hearing of a motion for
a new trial into the statute governing service of JNOV motions
and statute governing service of motions to set aside and vacate
a judgment. Currently, those statutes specify that filing and
notice of these motions are to be in line with a motion for new
trial but the JNOV statute does not specify the deadlines that
the court has to meet in hearing these motions. This bill would
ensure that with respect to all three post-verdict motions, the
power of the court to rule on a motion to set aside and vacate a
judgment expires 60 days from the mailing of notice of entry of
judgment by the clerk of the court as specified, or 60 days
after service upon the moving party by any party of written
notice of entry of the judgment, whichever is earlier, or if
that notice has not been given, then 60 days after filing of the
first notice of intention to move to set aside and vacate the
judgment. If that motion is not determined within the 60-day
period, or within that period, as extended, the effect shall be
a denial of the motion without further order of the court.
Likewise, the bill would clarify for all three post-verdict
motions that the filing of the moving, opposing, and reply
briefs and any accompanying documents shall be in accordance
with the timelines set for those documents in relation to a
motion for a new trial.
Support : Judicial Council
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California Defense Council; Consumer Attorneys of
California
AB 1659 (Chau)
Page 8 of ?
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 2106 (Wagner, Ch. 83, Stats. 2012) was
enacted to add time limits upon which the court must act to
render its decision on a motion to set aside and vacate a
judgment
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************