Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 19STCV39284, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39284    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200

BACKGROUND

            This is a personal injury action.  Plaintiff Berenice Williams was driving her car on the freeway when she was rear-ended by Defendant Jessica Mandujano.  After a trial, the jury found that Defendant was negligent, that Defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing injury, and that Plaintiff was not negligent.  Plaintiff sought over $865,000 in damages, but the jury awarded Plaintiff only $5000.  This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for additur, or in the alternative for a new trial on the issue of past and future non-economic damages.    

DISCUSSION

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as untimely.  Under Code Civ. Proc. §659, Plaintiff had 15 days from service of the notice of entry of judgment to file and serve her notice of intention to move for new trial.  The 15 day requirement is jurisdictional, and “the trial court has no power to entertain or act on the motion” if it is untimely.  (Douglas v. Janis (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 931, 936.)  “Timely filing is essential to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a motion for a new trial.”  (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.) 

Here, the notice of entry of judgment was served on September 12, 2022.  (Ex. A to Opp.)  Plaintiff had 15 days, until September 27, 2022, to file her notice of intent.  Plaintiff did not serve a separate notice of intent to move for new trial.  Instead, she served a notice of motion setting forth her intent to move for a new trial or additur combined with the supporting brief and declaration.  But she did not file or serve the document until November 3, 2022, 52 days after notice of entry of judgment was served. 

Further, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §660, the Court has 75 days from service of notice of entry of judgment to rule on Plaintiff’s motion.  That means Plaintiff’s motion had to be heard and ruled on by November 28, 2022.  The 75 day limit is mandatory and jurisdictional.  Any order made after the 75 day period purporting to rule on a motion for new trial is void.  (Fischer v. First Int’l Bank (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 1433, 1450-51.)  Because the limit is jurisdictional, it cannot be extended by consent, waiver, agreement or acquiescence of the court or the parties.  (Meskell v. Culver City Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 815, 825.)  Since the motion is not being heard until December 9, 2022, the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on it. 

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for additur or in the alternative for a new trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2022                                       ___________________________

                                                                                    Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court