Magic Words Sometimes Make a Difference

Simgel Co. v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., No. B292458 (D2d8 Oct. 1, 2020)

This is a pretty ridiculous lemon law case about some very minor electrical problems regarding the power windows in a Jaguar. (Tom Magliozzi, for one, would be rolling in his grave to hear about electrical issues in a British import…) In answering the verdict form, the jury checked the box on the verdict form indicating that the car had no material defect. But, because the parties failed to indicate that a “no” answer meant the jury should stop, the jury went on to find that the Plaintiff had timely revoked acceptance and that there were $26k in rescission damages.

Maybe Mandatory, But Definitely Not Jurisdictional.

Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, No. S227393 (Cal Jan. 19, 2017)

The issue is whether Plaintiff’s late filing of declarations in support of a motion for new trial—to which Defendant didn’t object in the trial court—is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised as a matter of right for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court affirms the court of Appeal in 2015’s Kabran decision and says no, for largely the same reasons.

New Trial, Notwithstanding a Lack of Substantial Evidence

Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr., No. B268130 (D2d2 Sept. 29, 2016)

The court here affirms the grant of a motion for new trial on damages for a law student injured due to a surgical mistake, clarifying the applicable standard for awarding damages based on future earning capacity. So far as procedure goes, the court clarifies some issues with the difference between new trial and jnov motions as well as some evidentiary issues likely to recur on trial after remand. 

Every Requirement Isn't Jurisdictional

Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hosp., No. D064133 (D4d1 May 20, 2015)

This is a med-mal case where the timeliness of a new trial motion is at issue. Plaintiff complied with the fifteen day window to file a notice of intention to move for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure § 659(a). But she didn’t pay the filing fee when she filed her brief and affidavits, which resulted in her blowing the ten-day deadline to get those docs on file under § 659a. Defendant didn’t object to the trial judge, who ultimately granted the motion on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. On appeal, defendant argues, for the first time, that plaintiff’s tardiness deprived the court of jurisdiction to grant the motion.

Not so. Although § 659(a)’s fifteen-day deadline to file a notice of intention has been deemed “mandatory and jurisdictional,” the better of the cases agree that § 659a’s ten-day deadline thereafter to file a brief and affidavits is not. The court here declines to follow Erikson v. Weiner, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1663 (1996), which read § 659a’s use of the word “shall” to impose a jurisdictional limit. As the court usefully explains, the use of statutory language indicating that a requirement is strict or mandatory does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction if there’s non-compliance. Failure to comply with these mandatory requirements does not render any proceeding in spite of them void.

It follows that, since there isn’t a jurisdictional defect at issue, nothing stops the court from holding that defendant waived the error by failing to object. Which it does.

Affirmed.

Update: Review granted, July 29, 2015.

Typical Post-Trial Madness

Ochoa v. Dorado, No. B240595 (D2d3 July 22, 2014)

This rear-ender auto accident case is a glorious procedural mess.