Nitich v. Fernandez

VALLÉE, J.

Appeal from an order granting motions of defendants Felipe Fernandez and City of Los Angeles for a new trial.

The question is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain and determine the motions.

Chronology:

March 25, 1960—jury returned verdict for plaintiff against Fernandez and City of Los Angeles. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial. Hearing of the motions continued to April 5, 1960. Entry of judgment stayed.

March 31,1960—City of Los Angeles served and filed notice of intention to move for new trial on various grounds.

March 31, 1960—plaintiff and defendants stipulate that defendants have up to and including April 4, 1960, within which to serve and file notices of intention to move for new trial.

April 4, 1960—Fernandez served and filed notice of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for new trial on various grounds.

April 5, 1960—motions heard and submitted.

April 21, 1960—minute order of March 25 amended

nunc pro tunc

as of that date to read: “Defendants Felipe Fernandez and City of Los Angeles move the court for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, reserving the right to move for a new trial, as to each of said defendants.”

April 21, 1960—motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict denied. Motions for new trials ordered off calendar. Minute order says: “Notices of said motions were filed too late under Section 629 C.C.P. and prematurely under Section 659 sub 2 C.C.P.” Judgment on verdict entered.

April 26, 1960—notice of entry of judgment served on defendants.

April 26, 1960—Fernandez served and filed notice of intention to move for new trial on various grounds including insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.

April 27, 1960—notice of entry of judgment filed. Notice of ruling on motions for judgment notwithstanding verdict and for new trial served and filed.

[860]