Daily Blast January 27, 2015

The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, issued an opinion in Maroney v. Iacobsohn (Jan. 27, 2015, B249890) __ Cal.App.4th ___, analyzing the jurisdictional deadlines for noticing and ruling on a motion for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure sections 659 and 660. (Slip opn., p. 2.) Specifically, the court addressed “whether service of notice of entry of judgment by the party moving for new trial triggers the statutes’ jurisdictional deadlines.” (Ibid., italics in original.) The court held that it does not. (Ibid.)

Following entry of judgment, defendant moved to recover costs. (Slip opn., p. 2.) Plaintiff responded with a motion to tax costs, which included a file-stamped copy of the judgment as an exhibit. The clerk of the court did not serve notice of entry of judgment on the parties. (Id. at p. 4.) Twenty-two days after serving a file-stamped copy of the judgment, plaintiff filed a notice of intention to move for new trial. Eighty-two days after plaintiff served a file-stamped copy of the judgment, but only 60 days after she filed her notice of intention to move for new trial, the court held a hearing on plaintiff’s new trial motion. (Id. at p. 5.) Defendant argued that plaintiff’s notice of intention had been filed too late and the trial court’s jurisdiction to rule on the new trial motion had lapsed. Defendant maintained that the jurisdictional time period began to run when plaintiff served defendant with the file-stamped copy of the judgment as an exhibit to her motion to tax costs. The trial court agreed that its jurisdiction to rule on the motion had expired. (Id. at p. 2.) The court nevertheless made a conditional order granting the motion for new trial if the Court of Appeal determined its jurisdiction had not lapsed. (Id. at p. 3.)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the new trial motion because notice of entry of judgment was never served “on the moving party” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 660. (Slip opn., p. 2.) According to the court, “absent notice mailed by the court clerk pursuant to section 664.5, a party must serve notice of entry of judgment on the moving party to shorten the 180-day deadline under section 659 [to file a notice of intention to move for new trial] and to start the 60-day jurisdictional clock under section 660 [for the trial court to rule on the new trial motion].” (Id. at p. 13, italics in original.) Since plaintiff was not served with notice of entry of judgment, her notice of intention was timely under section 659. That act commenced the 60-day jurisdictional period for the court to rule on her motion under section 660. (Id. at p. 9.) Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the new trial motion when it purported to enter its conditional order 60 days later. (Id. at p. 13.) The plaintiff, the moving party, did not and could not serve notice of entry of judgment on herself. (Id. at p. 9.) The Court of Appeal also held that there is no statutory authorization for the trial court to condition the grant of a new trial motion on subsequent appellate review of the jurisdictional issue. Thus, the court’s order conditionally granting a new trial was a nullity with no legal effect. (Id. at pp. 3, 13.)

This case shows the importance of serving a notice of entry of judgment immediately if you are the prevailing party to start the opposing party’s deadlines for post-trial motions and appeal. Once notice of entry of judgment is served, the opposing party has 15 days to file a notice of intention to move for new trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 659, subd. (a)(2).) The moving party then has 10 days after filing the notice of intention to move for new trial to file the memorandum of points and authorities in support. (Code Civ. Proc., § 659a.) The trial court must rule on the new trial motion within 60 days after service of notice of entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 660.)