Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hosp., 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 361

Plaintiff Berthe Kabran substituted in after her husband Eke Wokocha died following a jury verdict finding Sharp Memorial Hospital negligent but not the cause of his quadriplegia.
An autopsy suggested the spinal lesion was a traumatic neuroma (supporting causation), and Kabran moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence supported by affidavits from Drs. Grice and Gross.
Kabran missed paying the court filing fee when initially attempting to file the memorandum and affidavits; the clerk canceled the April 2 time stamp, then the filings were accepted with correct filing fees on April 5 and April 9.
The trial court granted a new trial, expressly relying on the Grice affidavit; the Hospital opposed on the merits but did not object to the affidavits’ timeliness in the trial court.
On appeal the Hospital argued for the first time that Code Civ. Proc. § 659a’s 10-day (30-day aggregate) affidavit deadline is jurisdictional (relying on Erikson v. Weiner) and that untimely affidavits deprived the trial court of power to grant a new trial.
The California Supreme Court held that § 659a’s filing deadlines are not jurisdictional; because the Hospital failed to object below, it forfeited the timeliness challenge and could not raise it for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 659a’s 10‑day / 30‑day aggregate affidavit deadlines are jurisdictional (i.e., deprive the court of fundamental jurisdiction if missed)	Kabran: § 659a is directory, not jurisdictional; courts retain power to consider late affidavits and parties can forfeit timeliness objections	Hospital (Sharp): The 30‑day aggregate limit is mandatory/jurisdictional per Erikson; affidavits filed after that period cannot be considered and any order relying on them is void	The Court held § 659a is not jurisdictional; its deadlines are procedural (directory), so failure to comply does not strip the court of fundamental jurisdiction to consider affidavits
Whether the Hospital forfeited its timeliness objection by failing to raise it in the trial court	Kabran: Hospital did not object below and thus waived the issue; trial court properly exercised discretion to consider affidavits	Hospital: Timeliness is jurisdictional and cannot be forfeited; it may be raised for the first time on appeal	Held for Kabran: Because § 659a is not jurisdictional, the Hospital’s failure to object in the trial court forfeited the timeliness challenge on appeal

Erikson v. Weiner, 48 Cal.App.4th 1663 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (held § 659a’s affidavit deadline jurisdictional; trial court could not consider affidavits filed after aggregate period)
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (Cal. 1941) (distinguishes fundamental lack of jurisdiction from acts merely in excess of jurisdiction)
Wiley v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 220 Cal.App.3d 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (opposing party’s failure to object to procedural filing defect in trial court precludes raising it on appeal)
Hicks v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc., 18 Cal.2d 773 (Cal. 1941) (affidavits filed after statutory period need not be considered; court affirmed denial of new trial where affidavits untimely)
Allen v. (People v.) Allen, 42 Cal.4th 91 (Cal. 2007) (distinguishes mandatory versus jurisdictional rules; noncompliance with mandatory rule may be forfeited)