Crotty

Crotty v. Trader

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1036·50 Cal. App. 4th 765·57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818·96 Daily Journal DAR 13270·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8012
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 1996A073928California1,971 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lambden, J.

John and Alice Crotty (Crotty) move to dismiss William L. Trader’s appeal. We find Trader cannot appeal a reconsideration order and his appeal of the judgment is untimely. He does timely appeal, however, the court’s denial of his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Accordingly, we grant a partial dismissal.

Background

A jury awarded Crotty $62,500 against Trader and Trader’s business, Trader Inspection Service. The court subtracted the amount paid by other defendants in settlement and ordered Trader to pay $41,402.50 plus costs. The court sent notice of its judgment on January 10, 1996.

Trader moved for a new trial and JNOV. By an order dated February 9, 1996, the court denied that motion. Trader moved for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 and the court heard the motion on February 26,1996. Notice of its denial was sent March 25,1996.

Trader filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 1996, stating he was appealing the order “denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict which was heard on February 26, 1996.”

Discussion

Crotty moves for dismissal because (1) Trader did not…

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.