New trial motion in California unlawful detainer (eviction) case

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/motion-for-a-new-trial-in-an-unlawful-detainer-in-california/

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict in California unlawful detainer (eviction) case

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in a California unlawful detainer (eviction) case

is the topic of this blog post.  A motion for JNOV in California is authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 629. JNOV motions are much more limited in scope than a motion for new trial however they are an even more powerful tool if used in the right situations as a JNOV motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence at trial, thus prevailing on the motion results in a new and different judgment in the moving party's favor.

A JNOV 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.

Because JNOV contemplates the 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 critically 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. A California Court of Appeal decision states that a trial court may not grant a JNOV unless there is an actual verdict.

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 13 page motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for an eviction case containing brief instructions,  memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, proposed order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict and proof of service by mail sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for California eviction

 

Attorneys or parties who would like to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

View over 300 sample legal documents for sale


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 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

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.

Opposition to Code of Civil Procedure section 663 motion in California

An opposition to a Code of Civil Procedure section 663 motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment in California is the topic of this blog post.  

Any party wishing to oppose a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section should serve and file their opposition at least nine (9) court days before the hearing and should be served by personal delivery or overnight mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has ordered otherwise.

Any party served with a motion to vacate and enter a different judgment should review closely the motion and all supporting declaration to determine what grounds exist for an opposition.  The first possible ground for opposition is that the motion is not timely filed as in most cases the motion must be filed within 15 days after the party is served with a notice of entry of judgment, either by the clerk of the court, or any other party.  For more information parties should review Code of Civil Procedure section 663a.

Other possible grounds for opposition would be that the moving party has not met their burden of showing sufficient facts or evidence to support either of the two grounds listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 663 which states that, 

“A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment:

1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected.

2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.”

The opposition should include enough supporting facts and evidence to support the opposition such as the fact that a judgment entered after a court trial is consistent with the legal conclusion to be drawn from the facts as found by the court and that the motion may not challenge the factual bases for the decision of the court, and for a judgment entered after a jury trial that the judgment is consistent with the special verdict of the jury.

A California Court of Appeal ruled in a case from over 75 years ago that so long as the judgment rendered is the correct legal conclusion to be drawn from the facts found by the court, any motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment should be denied.

Another California Court of Appeal in a recent case ruled that a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment cannot be used to challenge the factual bases for the decision of the court.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 10 page sample opposition to a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter another and different judgment containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can use the link shown below. 

Sample opposition to motion to vacate judgment in California

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 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit Subscribe to FREE weekly newsletter for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: Twitter page for LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: Sample legal document packages for sale

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.

 

Opposing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in California

Opposing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in California is the topic of this blog post.  A JNOV motion in California can be opposed on the grounds that substantial evidence supports the verdict so the JNOV motion must be denied, or that the JNOV motion is not timely.

Anyone served with a JNOV motion in California should first make sure that the JNOV motion is timely as it must be filed and served 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.  See Code of Civil Procedure sections 629 and 659.

If the JNOV motion is timely it should then be determined if there is any substantial conflict in the evidence as that is a primary requirement for a JNOV motion in California.

A California Court of Appeal has held that a court must deny a JNOV motion if it finds substantial evidence to support the verdict.  The court must also presume that all of the evidence supporting the verdict is true in ruling on the JNOV motion.

A JNOV motion is fundamentally different from a motion for new trial as the California Supreme Court has stated that the court cannot reweigh the evidence and cannot judge the credibility of witnesses. 

The California Supreme Court has also stated in another case that not only must the court disregard conflicting evidence, it must also draw all reasonable inferences in the winning party's favor.

A California Court of Appeal also stated in a case from over 30 years ago that a JNOV motion is properly denied even when most of the evidence supporting the verdict is circumstantial.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample opposition to a California motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that contains a memorandum of points and authorities, proposed order and proof of service by mail that is sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample opposition to motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict

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 300 sample legal documents.

If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

Visit his website at LegalDocsPro website and his Facebook page at Facebook page

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: Subscribe to FREE weekly 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.