Important Change to our 30-day Money Back Guarantee ************************************** Due to the increasing allegations of fraudulent purchase transactions involving documents specifically designated for the purposes of litigation in eviction and/or unlawful detainer proceedings, we have been forced into choosing whether to continue offering such documents at all to ANYONE, or to declare that they are NON-REFUNDABLE, and are no longer covered by the 30-day money-back guarantee. ************************************** Consequently we have decided that as of March 16, 2024 at 1:00 am, PDT any single document specifically listed in the Eviction Defense Collection is hereby NON-REFUNDABLE. To determine if one or more of your proposed documents are NON-REFUNDABLE you will need to review the list of single documents found within the description for the Eviction Defense Collection. ************************************** In the meantime, we will be updating the individual file listings for all such affected documents. ************************************** HOWEVER, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED!

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a California unlawful detainer (eviction) case

by Stan Burman

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a California unlawful detainer (eviction) case is the topic of this blog post. 

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in a California unlawful detainer (eviction) case is authorized under Code of Civil Procedure section 629 which states in pertinent part that,

“The court, before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for a new trial, either of its own motion, after five days’ notice, or on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made.”

A request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a California eviction case is authorized as Code of Civil Procedure § 1177 states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter the provisions of Part II of this Code are applicable to, and constitute the rules of practice in the proceedings mentioned in this Chapter.”

A request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict while it is more limited in scope than a motion for new trial is an even more powerful tool if used in the right situations. Since a JNOV challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence at trial prevailing on the motion results in a new and different judgment in the moving party's favor.

A JNOV also differs from a motion for a new trial in that a JNOV motion consists of a single document. The entire motion, including the notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities, is due at the same time as the notice of intent to move for a new trial.

Deadline to file for Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in a California unlawful detainer (eviction) case.

Because new trial and JNOV motions are often sought concurrently, the time limit for filing the JNOV motion is exactly the same as the time for filing a notice of intent to move for a new trial. A JNOV motion must be filed and served on all adverse parties within the period for filing a new trial notice of intent under Code of Civil Procedure Section 659 which is within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court, or service upon the moving party by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest.   This time period cannot be extended by any court or any stipulation.

Since a JNOV contemplates entry of a new and different judgment, a proposed judgment should be included with the motion or be submitted at the time of hearing at the latest. Prompt compliance is extremely important because the trial court has a very limited time in which to act on the motion for JNOV.

The main limitation to the JNOV is that the trial court's power to grant a motion for JNOV is severely limited. The trial court may not grant a JNOV unless there is an actual verdict. If the jury returns no verdict or an incomprehensible verdict, a JNOV is not appropriate. See Mish v. Bruckus, (1950) 97 Cal. App. 2d 770, 776.

However if no substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict a JNOV must be granted as one California Court of Appeal has stated that the purpose of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not to afford a review of the jury's deliberation but to prevent a miscarriage of justice in those cases where the verdict rendered is without foundation.

Sample request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a California eviction case for sale.

Attorneys and parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in a California unlawful detainer (eviction) case containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, proposed order and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.

Sample motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for California by Stan Burman on Scribd

 

Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.

To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/legaldocspro

Follow Stan Burman on Google Plus at:

https://plus.google.com/+StanBurman

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Back to Blog from LegalDocsPro