Appellate Reports

Who needs to know about this case:
Lawyers seeking (or opposing) new-trial motions, particularly after a motion for summary judgment. You face any wrongful or other cases then contact a corporate attorney who will help you.
Why it’s important: Clarifies the timing and procedures governing new-trial motions.
Synopsis: Plaintiff sued Sutter for medical malpractice. Sutter sought and obtained summary judgment, and served a notice of entry of judgment” upon entry of the order granting summary judgment - but before entry of the actual judgment. Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to move for new trial 15 days after service of the notice. The notice of intent cited only a single statutory ground, that the “decision is ‘against law’ as provided by Judgment was entered on the summary judgment after the notice of intent to move for a new trial, and notice of end of judgment was entered by the defendant. Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities substantively argued that the trial court’s order was legally erroneous. Defendants’ opposition to the motion addressed this ground. Plait reply expressly cited “error of law” t section 657, subd. (7) as a basis for motion.

The trial court heard the motion on November 9, 2009. A hearing, plaintiff's counsel advised the court that because the notice of intent move for a new trial had been filed on September 25, 2009, the last day for the court to rule on the motion was 60 days thereafter, November 24, 2009. Sutter did not dispute this, nor did it advise the coy that, in its view, the last day to rule was d day of the hearing, November 9. The tri court granted the motion by minute ord dated November 18, 2009.

It directed plaintiffs counsel to prepare a formal order. The next day, plaintiff’s counsel advised the court by letter that the court itself was required to prepare the new-trial order. The letter again advised the court that the last day to issue the order was November 24, 2009. Sutter did not respond to the letter. The court issued an order granting the motion on November 24, 2009, stating that it was granted because the summary judgment resulted from an “error in law” under Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subd. 7.

You worked hard and took risks to achieve a good settlement for your client. Finish the job by securing payments that are guaranteed and tax-free. To protect your client, you must include the benefit design as part of the final settlement documentation. That’s why you want the benefit designer to be on your side of the table.
and the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Federal Judicial Center, Second Edition, 2000 David Michaels, “When Science Isn’t Enough: Wilhelm Hueper, Robert A.M. Case and the Uimits of Scientific Evidence in Preventing Occupational Bladder Cancer,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health” Vol. The, first published in 1965, has new life and can aid plaintiffs in bolstering scientific findings and overcoming Daubert hearing pitfalls The Metzger Law Group is the only law firm in California that is dedicated 100% to litigating toxic tort cases. We represent workers with chemically-induced diseases in third party lawsuits against manufacturers of numerous and varied chemical products. We have obtained more than 20 settlements and verdicts in seven figures in toxic tort cases, mostly regarding benzene and leukemia and other blood-related cancers.