Motion For New Trial Procedure Muddier Than Ever.

After turning down defendant’s offer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 of $200,000, a jury awarded $73,450 to plaintiff while assessing 40 percent fault to plaintiff. Plaintiff was then left with a total of $44,070. The court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict, but the clerk did not serve notice of entry of judgment. The following week, defendant filed a memorandum of costs, seeking $39,996.46 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. A few weeks later, plaintiff filed a motion to tax costs. 57 days after judgment was entered, plaintiff filed a notice of intention to file a motion for new trial. 60 days later, the trial court announced its tentative ruling to grant the motion on the ground of insufficient evidence with respect to the jury’s allocation of 40 percent comparative fault. But when defendant raised the issue whether the court still had jurisdiction to hear the motion for new trial, the trial court “conditionally” granted the motion for new trial, not sure whether it still had jurisdiction to do so. Plaintiff lost on appeal. The appellate court said the trial court still had jurisdiction to rule on the motion for new trial, but stated: “[B]ecause there is no statutory authorization for the court to condition the grant of a new trial motion on subsequent appellate review of the jurisdictional issue, the order appealed from is a legal nullity that we can neither reverse nor affirm. Further, because the court did not file an effective order ruling on the new trial motion before its jurisdiction expired, the motion was denied by operation of law.” (Maroney v. Iacobsohn (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; January 27, 2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 900 [183 Cal.Rptr.3d 257].)