Category Archives: New Trials

April 1, 2008

Appellate Surprises

Some points about appellate practice — even well-settled points — can come as surprises to those not well versed in it. Doe v. United Airlines, case no. B192865 (2d Dist. Mar. 20, 2008) consolidates several of them in a single case. I’m only going to spend a line or two on each one, without much elaboration. The point of the post is to disclose just a few traps trial attorneys can fall into, not to give detailed exposition on each point.

My original post about the case concerned what some might consider a procedural oddity: a new trial motion where no trial ever occurred. A new trial motion is validly made after a grant of summary judgment.

Here are the remaining points I think worth bringing out of the case:

The Protective Cross Appeal. Congratulations, you’ve won your new trial motion! Your adversary appeals the grant of a new trial. And if you think you’re going to be disappointed if they prevail on appeal, you’re going to be absolutely horrified if you forgot to file a protective cross-appeal from the underlying judgment.

Forfeiture of Evidentiary Objections. California decisions generally hold that objections to evidence offered in summary judgment are not preserved for appeal unless the objecting party secures a ruling from the trial court. But with the recent development of a split of authority, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue.

Affirmance of New Trial Orders on Alternative Grounds. Read that new trial statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 657) closely. Section 657 provides, in part, that (emphasis added) “[o]n appeal from an order granting a new trial the order shall be affirmed if it should have been granted upon any ground stated in the motion, whether or not specified in the order or specification of reasons,” followed by exceptions to this rule.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Procedure, New Trials, Summary Judgment, Waiver of Issues

March 25, 2008

Order or Judgment? It can make a big difference!

More wrangling over what triggers a deadline to appeal.

Several weeks ago, I reported on Adaimy v. Ruhl, case no. B193745 (2d Dist. Feb. 28, 2008), in which the court of appeal held that serving just one of multiple attorneys representing a party with a notice of entry of an order denying a motion for new trial suffices to trigger the deadline to appeal.  In this order modifying the opinion without change in the judgment and denying rehearing, the court tacks two paragraphs on to its original opinion that lead me to the question posed in the title of this post.

Though the original opinion refers to an August 7, 2006 “notice of entry of the order” denying the appellant’s new trial motion, the modified opinion refers to a document of the same date titled “Ruling on Submitted Matter,” apparently the same document.  The generic reference has some significance in the context of the new argument that the court quickly disposes of.

Appellant claimed that the “Ruling on Submitted Matter” was not a notice of entry of order within the meaning of rule 8.108(b)(1)(A), California Rules of Court (extending the time to appeal to 30 days after notice of entry of order denying new trial) because it was not titled “Notice of Entry of Order” and was not file-stamped with the date of entry.

The court notes, however, that the words “Notice of Entry of Order” appear at page 6 of the document.  That’s enough.  But is that necessary?  Rule 8.108(b)(1)(A) triggers the deadline for appealing from the service of “an order denying the motion or a notice of entry of that order.”  It’s hard to say exactly what this document was comprised of, but I’m guessing that the “Ruling on Submitted Matter” was not the order itself, but a document with the order attached. If it were simply the order itself, it seems the court could have found it sufficient to trigger the appeal deadline regardless of the presence of the words “notice of entry.”

As for the missing file stamp, the court notes that while a file-stamp must appear on any copy of the judgment served in lieu of a notice of entry of judgment (rule 8.104(a)(1)), there is no such requirement under rule 8.108 for notice of entry or a copy of the order denying a new trial.

Be the first to comment!
Posted in: Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Procedure, California Procedure, New Trials, Notice of Appeal

March 20, 2008

New Trial Motions after Summary Judgment

Can you move for a new trial when your case was disposed of by summary judgment?  This question undoubtedly causes some degree of cognitive dissonance in many lawyers: a new trial when there was no trial?

But the answer is “yes.”

A reminder comes in the form of Doe v. United Airlines, case no. B192865 (2d Dist. Mar. 20, 2008).  After United successfully moved for summary judgment, Doe moved for a new trial on the ground of “newly discovered evidence” that purportedly raised a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment.

Not that it ultimately did her any good.  The court of appeal holds that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial motion and affirms on plaintiff’s protective cross-appeal from the grant of summary judgment.

There are lots of post-trial and appellate tidbits in this case.  Nothing new, just well-established principles for which the case provides a reminder.  I’ll probably be putting up separate posts on them (or consolidate them into a new post) in the next few days.

3 Comments
Posted in: California Procedure, New Trials, Summary Judgment, Summary Judgment

January 23, 2008

Jury Foreman’s Blog a Likely Issue on Appeal

A local trial court has just denied a new trial motion based on juror misconduct, where the misconduct was the jury foreman’s blogging about the gang member’s 19-day murder trial while it was going on, including posting a photo of the murder weapon, commenting on the evidence and witnesses, praising his own performance as jury foreman, and criticizing the work ethic of courtroom staff. From today’s Ventura County Star:

After sentencing a gang member to prison for murder, a Ventura County judge ripped into the jury foreman Tuesday, holding the juror in contempt of court for writing a blog that exposed details of the case during the trial.

The blog, or Web log, also criticized the judge’s staff and complained that the 19-day trial was taking too long.

Ventura County Superior Court Judge Edward Brodie told the jury member, identified only as Juror No. 7, that he had failed to follow the judge’s daily instructions to refrain from discussing the case with anyone during the trial.

Attorneys said this apparently marks the first time a jury member in Ventura County has been accused of misconduct for producing a blog, an increasingly popular type of journal on the Internet.

“. . . an increasingly popular type of journal on the Internet.”  Ya think?

The jury foreman testified at his contempt proceedings that “he didn’t believe his blog constituted ‘discussing the case’ in defiance of the judge’s instructions.”  Really?  According to the defendant’s lawyer, the blog included a chat room where readers asked questions and the juror answered them.

The article includes some sparring between counsel over the merits of raising the blog as an issue on appeal.  The trial judge’s ruling, obviously, means that he did not think that the misconduct prejudiced the fairness of the trial.

According to the article, the blog is titled “The Misanthrope,” but none of the blogs I found that included “misanthrope” in the title had posts about the trial.  It’s possible the judge ordered the juror to take down the posts, but I couldn’t even find cached pages in Google.

5 Comments
Posted in: Blogging, Juries, New Trials

Tags: ,

July 3, 2007

Raiders Lose on Independent Review of Order Granting New Trial

Congratulations!  The court has granted your motion for a new trial!

Now, just pray the trial judge doesn’t screw it up.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court opinion in The Oakland Raiders v. National Football League, case no. S132814 (July 2, 2007) demonstrates again that no winner of a new trial can have confidence in the order granting the new trial unless the court specifies its reasons in the order or files its specification of reasons within 10 days of the order, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 657.  In this case, the court’s failure to specify its reasons results in a different standard of review on appeal that effectively shifts the burden of persuasion from the party appealing the order granting the new trial to the party defending the appeal . . .

Read the full article »

2 Comments
Posted in: California Procedure, California Supreme Court, New Trials, Post-Trial Practice, Standard of Review