 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Palmer v. GTE California Incorporated1/30/2002
was not "service on the moving party" (ยง 660) and therefore did not commence the 60-day period for the court to rule on the new trial motion. The court also held in an alternative holding that a party's service of notice of entry of judgment did not commence the 60-day period for the court to rule on a new trial motion under section 660 until the party later filed the notice of entry as required by section 664.5, subdivision (a). (Cherry Highland, at pp. 261, 263.) The court stated that Van Beurden "held that" a party's notice of ruling commences the 60-day period for the court to rule on a new trial motion only if the party complies with section 664.5, subdivision (a), and that Van Beurden "seems to indicate" that a party's notice of entry is not effective until the proof of service is filed. (Cherry Highland, at p. 261.) The court did not independently analyze section 660 to reach that conclusion, but deferred to the Supreme Court's perceived holding. (Cherry Highland, at p. 261.)
Dodge v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 513 held that a party's personal service of a file-stamped copy of the judgment commenced the 60-day period for the court to rule on a new trial motion under section 660 even though the party did not comply with section 664.5, subdivision (a). The court stated that a file-stamped copy of the judgment in a county where judgments are entered immediately upon filing provides unequivocal notice of the entry of judgment and date of entry, and therefore constitutes written notice of entry of judgment under section 660. (Dodge, at pp. 518-519.) It rejected the argument that a party's notice of entry of judgment under section 660 must comply with section 664.5, because section 660 does not state that a party's service of notice of entry must comply with section 664.5 and because section 660 states that the 60-day period commences upon the party's service, not upon filing of proof of service. (Dodge, at pp. 519-520, 522.) The court stated that the Legislature's failure to amend section 660 to require a party to file proof of service of notice of entry of judgment despite related amendments to other statutes and to rule 2 of the California Rules of Court and comment by the courts suggests that section 660 says what the Legislature wants it to say. (Dodge, at p. 522 & fn. 11.) The court concluded that section 660 is plain on its face and must be enforced as written. (Dodge, at pp. 522, 524, fn. 12.)
The Dodge court rejected the argument that a party serving notice of entry under section 660 must file proof of service as required under section 664.5, subdivision (a) in order to inform the court of the jurisdictional time limit to rule on a new trial motion. It explained that section 660 states that the time runs from a party's service of notice of entry and does not require filing of proof of service, and noted that the party moving for a new trial can ensure that the court is aware of the time limit. (Dodge v. Superior Court, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 524.)
The Dodge court distinguished Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th 51 on the grounds that Van Beurden involved a clerk's mailing of notice of entry of judgment, not service by a party, and involved the express requirement under section 660 that the clerk's mailing must be "pursuant to Section 664.5." (Dodge v. Superior Court, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 520.) It distinguished People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Cherry Highland Properties, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th 257 on the grounds that Cherry Highland involved service by the moving party and not on the moving party as expressly provided under section 660, and that Cherry Highland involved service b
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.
|
|