Barrese v. Murray
198 Cal. App. 4th 494
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Respondent Bárrese sued Murray under Marvin theory and was awarded $5.7M by a jury.
- Trial court believed Bárrese untrustworthy but denied a new trial believing it lacked power to modify the verdict.
- Appellate panel previously held the trial court erred in not hearing the new trial motion and remanded for rehearing.
- Appellant and respondent filed rehearing petitions; the court held the 60-day limit of section 660 does not apply and the trial court may adjudicate the motion on the merits.
- Judgment reversed and remanded to rehear and determine the new-trial motion under correct principles; costs awarded to Murray on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had power to rule on the new-trial motion | Bárrese: trial court has authority to rule on merits | Murray: power was limited or non-existent due to timing | Trial court has plenary power to hear on the merits and grant a new trial. |
| Whether section 660's 60-day limit applies post-remand | Bárrese: 60-day limit not applicable after appellate remand | Murray: §660 is jurisdictional and time-bar governs | Section 660 does not apply in this remand context; the court may proceed on the merits. |
| Whether the court may reweigh credibility on a motion for new trial | Bárrese: court can consider credibility independently of the jury | Murray: credibility determinations are the jury’s function | Trial court may disbelieve credibility and independently assess the weight of the evidence. |
| Whether remanding for a new trial is the proper remedy and disposition | Bárrese: remand for new-trial proceedings appropriate | Murray: remedy should align with prior trio of cases | Judgment reversed and remanded for rehearing on the new-trial motion under proper principles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercer v. Perez, 68 Cal.2d 104 (Cal. 1968) (trial court may disbelieve witnesses and reweigh evidence on new-trial motion)
- Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 21 Cal.3d 910 (Cal. 1978) (trial court as independent trier of fact in new-trial context)
- People v. Lagunas, 8 Cal.4th 1030 (Cal. 1994) (requires independent assessment of evidence supporting verdict)
- Lippold v. Hart, 274 Cal.App.2d 24 (Cal. App. 1969) (limits on appellate review of credibility; trial court may not simply defer to verdict)