Maroney

Maroney v. Iacobsohn

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2015B249890California5,436 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

This appeal concerns the jurisdictional deadlines for noticing and ruling on a motion for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure1 sections 659 and 660. Specifically, we must decide whether service of notice of entry of judgment by the party moving for new trial triggers the statutes‟ jurisdictional deadlines. We hold that it does not. The appeal arises from a rear end automobile accident; however, the issues presented are entirely procedural. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor plaintiff Keely Maroney (Plaintiff), apportioning 40 percent of the fault to Plaintiff and 60 percent to defendant Asaf Iacobsohn (Defendant).2 Following entry of judgment, Defendant moved to recover costs based on Plaintiff‟s rejection of an offer to compromise pursuant to section 998. Plaintiff responded with a motion to tax costs, which included a file-stamped copy of the judgment as an exhibit. Twenty-two days later, Plaintiff filed a notice of intention to move for new trial. The notice specified inadequate damages, insufficiency of the evidence, and error in law as grounds for relief. Defendant opposed the motion on the merits, but also argued Plaintiff‟s…

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.