A JNOV also differs from a motion for a new trial in that a
JNOV motion consists of a single document. The entire motion, including the
notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities, is due at the same
time as the notice of intent to move for a new trial.
Code of Civil Procedure § 629 states in pertinent part that,
“The court, before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for a new
trial, either of its own motion, after five days’ notice, or on motion of a
party against whom a verdict has been rendered, shall render judgment in favor
of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a
directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a
previous motion been made.”
Because new trial and JNOV motions are often sought
concurrently, the time limit for filing the JNOV motion is exactly the same as
the time for filing a notice of intent to move for a new trial. A JNOV motion
must be filed and served on all adverse parties within the period for filing a
new trial notice of intent under Code of Civil Procedure Section 659 which is within
15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the
court, or service upon the moving party by any party of written notice of entry
of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is
earliest. This time period cannot be
extended by any court or any stipulation.
Since a JNOV contemplates entry of a new and different
judgment, a proposed judgment should be included with the motion or be
submitted at the time of hearing at the latest. Prompt compliance is extremely important
because the trial court has a very limited time in which to act on the motion
for JNOV.
The main limitation to the JNOV is that the trial court's
power to grant a motion for JNOV is severely limited. The trial court may not
grant a JNOV unless there is an actual verdict. If the jury returns no verdict
or an incomprehensible verdict, a JNOV is not appropriate. See Mish v. Bruckus,
(1950) 97 Cal. App. 2d 770, 776.
However if no substantial evidence supports the jury’s
verdict a JNOV must be granted as one California Court of Appeal has stated
that the purpose of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not to
afford a review of the jury's deliberation but to prevent a miscarriage of justice
in those cases where the verdict rendered is without foundation.
Attorneys and parties in California who would like to view a
portion of a sample motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that
contains a memorandum of points and authorities, proposed order and proof of
service by mail can use the link shown below.
The author of this blog post Stan Burman is an entrepreneur and freelance
paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and
has created over 235 sample legal documents. Visit his website at: LegalDocsPro website
To subscribe to his FREE weekly legal newsletter visit: Subscribe to FREE weekly legal newsletter
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment