Pratt

Pratt v. Vencor, Inc.

Good Law
105 Cal. App. 4th 905·129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 741·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 116·2003 Daily Journal DAR 1077·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 877
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2003F038462California1,821 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiseman, J.

This case is like a bottle of fine California Chardonnay— very dry. It addresses a purely procedural question of the “trigger date” for the commencement of the 60-day time period within which the court must rule on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) when there is no corresponding motion for a new trial. We publish to resolve the contention that there is ambiguity in the language of Code of Civil Procedure sections 629 and 660 in determining the latest date for ruling on a JNOV motion.

We hold, pursuant to sections 629 and 660, that where there is no new trial motion filed, the latest date for ruling on a motion for JNOV is: (1) 60 days from and after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to section 664.5, or (2) 60 days from and after service on the moving party by any party of written notice of the entry of the judgment, whichever is earlier.

Procedural History

In September 1996, Sally M. Pratt (plaintiff) filed suit against Vencor, Inc., Stephanie Luell, and May Turner (defendants) for age discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional…

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.