The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this wrongful death case and its proceedings.)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
BOTH OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS SHOULD BE DENIED AT THE OUTSET BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS HAVE ENTIRELY FAILED TO FILE THEIR SUPPORTING MEMORANDA OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMITS
As mentioned in Defendant’s prior filing, California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 629, requires that the entire Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (hereinafter, JNOV ) be filed at the same time as the Notice of Intent to Move for a New Trial. Other than the brief reference to a JNOV in the Notice, as cited above, no supporting documentation was presented for such a motion. Based upon that failure alone, the Motion for JNOV should be denied.
Now, Plaintiffs have similarly failed to comply with applicable time limits in which to file supporting documents for their Motion for New Trial. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1600 (a) sets the time limits for service of the memorandum in support of a motion for a new trial: Within 10 days after filing notice of intention to move for a new trial …
The deadline for filing of the supporting documentation was, thus, February 14. The filing of the supporting documents did not occur until February 19.
The effect of this failure is addressed by California Rules of Court, Rule 1.1600 (b), which states: If the moving party fails to serve and file a memorandum within the time prescribed in (a), the court may deny the motion for a new trial without a hearing on the merits.
Based on the above, both motions should be denied.
In the event that the Court decides to address the merits of either motion, the following additional information is provided. (See Part 3 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.