Simplon Ballpark, LLC v. Scull
235 Cal. App. 4th 660
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Simplon Ballpark, LLC sued John Scull for breach of fiduciary duty and obtained a bench verdict in Simplon's favor; the court issued a statement of decision and judgment which the clerk served by mail on June 21, 2012.
- Scull filed posttrial motions including for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); Simplon objected that the motions were untimely due to service issues and challenged jurisdiction.
- The trial court granted Scull's JNOV and later filed an amended judgment vacating the prior decision in Simplon's favor; Simplon timely appealed.
- The central dispute on appeal was whether Scull timely served his posttrial motions under CCP 1013a, especially subdivision (3), which creates a rebuttable presumption of invalid service if the postmark is more than one day after the mailing date.
- The court concluded Simplon forfeited its challenge by failing to affirmatively invoke the subdivision (3) presumption below, and affirmed the judgment in Scull's favor.
- The decision discusses the nature of the service proof under subdivision (3) and whether it suffices to establish service under subdivision (1) or (3) and whether the presumption was properly invoked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service complied with CCP 1013a(3) or (1) for posttrial motions | Simplon argued service was under (3) and the postmark violated the one‑day rule | Scull argued service complied with (1) or (3) and was timely | Service was under (3); but the presumption of invalidity was not properly invoked by Simplon |
| Whether the subdivision (3) presumption of invalidity was properly invoked and preserved | Simplon contends the presumption applies and invalidates service if more than one day late | Scull contends the presumption was not properly invoked and thus not enforceable | Presumption is rebuttable and Simplon forfeited by failing to raise it with a proper motion below |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. GTE California, Inc., 30 Cal.4th 1265 (Cal. 2003) (time to file posttrial motions is jurisdictional)
- Ruiz v. Ruiz, 104 Cal.App.3d 374 (Cal.App.3d 1980) (jurisdictional rules for untimely motions)
- Douglas v. Janis, 43 Cal.App.3d 931 (Cal.App.3d 1974) (jurisdictional impact of untimely posttrial motions)
- Lee v. Placer Title Co., 28 Cal.App.4th 503 (Cal.App.4th 1994) (service by mail requirements under CCP 1013; proof of service standards)
- Dobrick v. Hathaway, 160 Cal.App.3d 913 (Cal.App.4th 1984) (proper proof of service procedures by mail)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal. 2012) (statutory interpretation; plain language governs when unambiguous)
- Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd., 9 Cal.4th 263 (Cal. 1994) (presumptions in statutory interpretation; burden of proof/production)