Pollock

Pollock v. Standard Oil Co.

Good Law
1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 1856·256 Cal. App. 2d 307·64 Cal. Rptr. 66
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1967Civ. 23268California1,366 words

Opinion

Opinion

Draper, J.

Can a court, after denying motion for new trial but within the period allowed for passing upon that motion, vacate the denial on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473? That is our question.

Although distracting, chronology seems required. In this action for personal injuries, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff by 9 to 3 vote, with juror Burns voting with the majority. Judgment was entered June 10, 1965, and notice of entry was served on defendant June 11. Defendant’s notice of intention to move for new trial was served and filed June 21. Irregularity in proceedings of the jury was a stated ground, but no affidavit supporting it was filed. Motion for new trial was denied July 9. On July 12, juror Burns telephoned the trial judge and said that she had, on her voir dire examination, concealed a bias for the plaintiff. The judge met with both counsel the next day, and advised them of Mrs. Burns ’ communication to him. On July 21 defendant filed and served a motion under section 473 to vacate the order denying new trial. Affidavits detailing due diligence were filed. The motion also was accompanied by affidavits of defense counsel and an investigator that they had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.