196 Cal. App. 4th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Collins, a minor, sues Sutter Memorial Hospital for medical malpractice.
- Sutter moved for summary judgment; court granted it, yielding a defense judgment.
- Collins moved for a new trial; the court vacated the judgment and granted a new trial.
- Notice issues arose: Collins filed a notice of intent to move for a new trial stating the ground as “against law”.
- Judges Loncke and Culhane ruled on authentication and the standard of care; Culhane ultimately vacated and granted a new trial based on error in law; Judge Chang later granted the new trial ground as error in law.
- This appeal challenges timeliness and grounds of the new-trial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the new-trial order under CCP 660 | 60-day clock triggered by notice of intent on Sept. 25 | Trigger was Sept. 10 notice; orders timeliness at issue | Timely; 60-day period commenced Sept. 25, making Nov. 18 and 24 timely |
| Ground for new trial not stated in notice of intent | Ground later argued—error in law—was conveyed in memorandum | Wrong ground requires reversal | Not reversible; correct ground was notified in memorandum and argued, preserving rights |
| Effect of mislabeling order as judgment | Labeling error did not render notice ineffective | Labeling could mislead; separate from actual ground | Not fatal; notice clearly informed of new-trial request and grounds under CCP 657 |
| Amendment of grounds after initial notice | Ground amended within permissible period | Amendment not timely or properly filed | Amendment not needed; timely memorandum supplied correct ground; no prejudice to Sutter |
Key Cases Cited
- Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp., 128 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (rendition of judgment occurs with order; not itself a judgment; prematurity trap avoided)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) (premature notice of motion; decision must be reached before filing)
- Ehrler v. Ehrler, 126 Cal.App.3d 147 (Cal. App. 1981) (no aggrieved party until there is a decision; grounds for new trial limited)
- Palmer v. GTE California, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 1265 (Cal. 2003) (notice of entry triggers deadlines under 659 and 660)
- McCordic v. Crawford, 23 Cal.2d 1 (Cal. 1943) (notice of entry timing implications for new-trial deadlines)