(“JNOV”) (CCP Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict § 629) jury has reached verdict, losing party asks trial judge to reverse… essentially, a second chance at (if lost, directed verdict directed verdict … OR if NO motion for made) judges dislike directed verdict directed verdicts… Judges do NOT want reversed on appeal… directed verdict AND, unfair for jury to follow entire trial ONLY to NOT be … allowed to deliberate jury MAY end up reaching correct result, anyway (AND, if NOT, then available) JNOV (CCP Motion for New Trial § 657) Unlike a traditional written motion NOT nonsuit/directed verdict/JNOV, done orally in court Exclusive list of grounds for all big mistakes (i.e. jury new trial misconduct, inadequate/excessive damages) Evidence of such grounds for difficult to obtain i.e. new evidence of jury misconduct (NOT simple misunderstanding) may ONLY come from talking w/ jurors after case… AND, MAY not be able to talk to jurors after trial (though, some … judges more proactive in keeping jurors around after verdict) (CCP power to rewrite verdict, make Additur/remittitur § 657(5)) damages higher/lower (depending on whether damages are inadequate/excessive) (similar to whether $$ amount of test motion”) “Ballpark” “877.6 damages related to proof/facts (NOT emotion/argument/ miscalculation) Party moving for has choice accept court’s additur/remittitur rewriting OR new trial Courts have power to do both (though, ONLY in remittitur federal court)… BUT, rarely do so (fear of being reversed, stepping on jury’s toes) If one party moves for AND opposing party moves for additur, court will probably ignore both (jury got it right) remittitur, (CCP Relief from Default/Judgment § 473(b)) (“may”) just relief from default/judgment available mistake, Discretionary inadvertence, surprise, OR excusable neglect
Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict (“JNOV”) (CCP § 629) jury has reached verdict, losing party asks trial judge to reverse… … essentially, a second chance at directed verdict (if directed verdict lost, OR if NO motion for directed verdict made) judges dislike directed verdicts… Judges do NOT want directed verdict reversed on appeal… … AND, unfair for jury to follow entire trial ONLY to NOT be allowed to deliberate jury MAY end up reaching correct result, anyway (AND, if NOT, then JNOV available) Motion for New Trial (CCP § 657) Unlike nonsuit/directed verdict/JNOV, a traditional written motion NOT done orally in court Exclusive list of grounds for new trial all big mistakes (i.e. jury misconduct, inadequate/excessive damages) Evidence of such grounds for new difficult to obtain i.e. evidence of jury misconduct (NOT simple misunderstanding) may ONLY come from talking w/ jurors after case… … AND, MAY not be able to talk to jurors after trial (though, some judges more proactive in keeping jurors around after verdict) Additur/remittitur (CCP § 657(5)) power to rewrite verdict, make damages higher/lower (depending on whether damages are inadequate/excessive) “Ballpark” test (similar to “877.6 motion”) whether $$ amount of damages related to proof/facts (NOT emotion/argument/ miscalculation) Party moving for additur/remittitur has choice accept court’s rewriting OR new trial Courts have power to do both (though, remittitur ONLY in federal court)… BUT, rarely do so (fear of being reversed, stepping on jury’s toes) If one party moves for additur, AND opposing party moves for remittitur, court will probably ignore both (jury got it right) Relief from Default/Judgment (CCP § 473(b)) Discretionary (“may”) just relief from default/judgment available mistake, inadvertence, surprise, OR excusable neglect
Civ-Pro-II_Bakhshian-Fall-2009.docx