 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Palmer v. GTE California Incorporated1/30/2002
ri-County, at pp. 275-276.) The court explained that in counties that do not enter judgments in a judgment book, the filing of a judgment is entry of judgment (§ 668.5), so service of a file-stamped copy of the judgment in such a county provides written notice of the entry of judgment and date of entry. (Tri-County, at p. 276.) Since section 659 states that the 15-day period commences upon service by a party of written notice, the court concluded that the time began to run upon service of the file-stamped copy regardless of the party's delay in filing a proof of service. (Tri-County, at p. 277.)
Ramirez v. Moran (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 431 also held that a party's service of a file-stamped copy of the judgment commenced the 15-day period to move for a new trial under section 659, despite the fact that the party did not file a proof of service. The court held that the party's service of a file-stamped copy of the judgment with a cover letter, as later shown by declaration, was written notice of entry of judgment by a party for purposes of section 659. (Ramirez, at p. 436.) The court also held that the untimely new trial motion was not a "valid" motion under rule 3 of the California Rules of Court, and therefore did not extend the time to appeal from the judgment under rule 3, so the appeal from the judgment was untimely. (Ramirez, at p. 437.)
The California Supreme Court in Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th 51 held that the clerk's mailing of a file-stamped copy of the judgment did not commence the 60-day period for the court to rule on a new trial motion under section 660 because the mailing was not "pursuant to Section 664.5" (§ 660). The court stated that a file-stamped copy of the judgment in a county that does not maintain a judgment book (§ 668.5) provides notice of the date of entry of judgment, but the question was whether the clerk's mailing of notice was " pon order of the court" as provided under section 664.5, subdivision (d). (Van Beurden, at p. 57 & fn. 2.)
A clerk's mailing is "pursuant to Section 664.5" (§ 660) only if a prevailing party is not represented by counsel or the court ordered the clerk to mail notice of entry of judgment. (§ 664.5, subds. (b), (d).) The Van Beurden court held that the fact that the clerk mailed notice of entry of judgment does not indicate that the mailing was " pon order of the court" (§ 664.5, subd. (d)) unless "the order itself indicates that the court directed the clerk to mail `notice of entry' of judgment." (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 64.) It held that to qualify as a clerk's notice of entry of judgment " pon order of the court" under section 664.5, subdivision (d), the mailed notice must state or bear the notation that it was given "upon order of the court" or "under section 664.5" and the clerk must execute and file a certificate of mailing. (Van Beurden, at p. 64.) It announced this rule to avoid uncertainty as to the jurisdictional time to file an appeal. (Ibid.) The court also stated in dicta that if the clerk's notice is not given pursuant to section 664.5, "the time for ruling on a motion for a new trial will be shortened only if the party submitting the order or judgment for entry serves notice of entry of judgment on all parties, files the original notice with the court, and files a proof of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.5, subd. (a.).) [Fn. omitted.]" (Van Beurden, at p. 65.)
People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Cherry Highland Properties (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 257, 262-263, held that service of notice of entry of judgment by the party moving for a new trial
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|