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.

Defendant filed (arguably late—we’ll get to that) motions for jnov and to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 663 for failure to conform with the jury’s special verdict. The trial court granted both, alternatively, finding that the jury’s finding of the lack of defect precluded a judgment for plaintiff, and that in any event, there was no evidence of a defect to support a jury finding to that respect.

As I mentioned, there’s a threshold issue about timing, which is jurisdictional. A notice of intention to file a jnov or § 663 motion needs to be filed at the earliest of (1) 15 days after the clerk mails notice of entry of the judgment under § 664.5; (2) 15 days after a party serves a written notice of entry of the judgment; or (c) 180 days after the judgment is entered. See §§ 629, 659(a)(2), 663a(a)(2). 

Defendant filed its jnov and § 663 motions 20 days after the clerk mailed a notice that the judgment had been entered. But the mailing of a notice of entry only starts the 15-day clock if the notice conforms with § 664.5. And as the Supreme Court held in Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., 15 Cal. 4th 51 (1997), a notice of mailing is sufficient under that section only when it states that it was provided “upon order of the court” or “under § 664.5.” The notice here was on a court form that didn’t explicitly say either of those things. So without the special words, the clerk’s mailing didn’t start the clock, which means there’s no timeliness issue that causes jurisdictional problems.

On the merits, § 663 says a judgment can be set aside when it is “not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.” Because the jury’s answer about the lack of defect on the special verdict form was inconsistent with any theory of liability, the § 663 motion was correctly granted.

The Court further upholds the alternative jnov ruling. That deals with a bunch of warranty law specifics that are outside of my lane. It should suffice to say that, based on the relevant standards, the court finds that there was no credible evidence from which a jury could have sustained a liability verdict.

Affirmed.