Source: https://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/2014/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:36:55+00:00

Document:
In a broad sense, trial preparation begins before a lawsuit is filed when decisions are made as to whether to proceed with litigation and continues through the filing and response to the initial complaint, through the discovery phase of the case (interrogatories, document production, depositions, etc.), often through a series of motions (to compel responses to discovery, for physical examinations, etc.), through efforts to settle, sometimes through arbitration, and continues until the day the trial commences.
When a case doesn’t settle, the trial preparation process is often very tedious and time-consuming.
Hybred Actions: Sometimes, legal and equitable issues are raised in the same cause of action (e.g., lien foreclosure proceedings); or in separate pleadings (e.g., equitable defenses to legal claims). If the legal and equitable issues are severable, the judge will decide the equitable issues, while the right to jury trial is preserved for the legal issues. If the issues are not severable, the right to a jury is determined under the “gist of the action” test (above). [Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 612, 622-623, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 741, 746] If the equitable and legal issues are tried separately, the order in which they are tried becomes significant. The judge’s findings of fact on equitable issues affect the jury’s determination of the legal issues.
To recover a fraudulent conveyance of a determinate sum of money.
For restitution of benefits paid under a contract following rescission thereof. Here, the relief sought is legal although measured by equitable doctrines.
To recover damages on a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity.
To recover damages for violation of a statute.
To recover a secret profit obtained in breach of fiduciary duties.
To compel a trustee to pay monies immediately and unconditionally due to a beneficiary.
For specific performance of a contract.
For “quasi specific performance” of a testamentary contract (e.g., to enforce oral agreement between testators who devise estates to each other and agree survivor will leave everything to plaintiffs).
To establish a constructive trust.
For cancellation of an instrument.
Reformation of a contract or other instrument.
Rescission of a contract or instrument.
To quiet title where there is no issue as to right of possession.
For damages or other relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Claims for breach of fiduciary duty.
Foreclosure of mortgage or lien on real or personal property.
Action to set aside judgment for extrinsic fraud or mistake.
Action seeking payment from trust estate for services rendered to the estate.
Interpleader actions in which the rights of the parties as between themselves are governed by principles of equity.
To recover amounts paid as a “penalty” for breach of contract (invalid liquidated damages provisions).
Proceeding for apportionment of settlement proceeds of wrongful death action.
In actions involving both legal and equitable issues, most courts will try the equitable issues first without a jury because this may obviate the necessity for jury trial of the legal issues. I.e., the court’s rulings on the equitable issues may establish rights or defenses that leave nothing further to be tried.
On or before the trial date, the Judge may set a “final Status Conference” between the judge and trial counsel at which final orders are made governing the scope and conduct of trial.
to explore the possibility of last-minute settlement.
Depending on the particular procedural and factual scenario of the case, the parties may consider bringing one or more pretrial motions.
Motion In Liminie: A motion in limine is a motion “at the threshold” of trial to exclude evidence deemed inadmissible and prejudicial by the moving party. Its purpose is to “avoid the obviously futile attempt to ‘unring the bell'” when highly prejudicial evidence is offered and then stricken at trial.
Motions in limine serve other purposes as well: They permit more careful consideration of evidentiary issues than would take place in the heat of battle during trial. They minimize sidebar conferences and disruptions during trial. Finally, by resolving critical evidentiary issues at the outset, they enhance efficiency of the trial process and promote settlements.
The most common use of a motion in limine is to prevent opposing parties from any use of certain prejudicial evidence. Unless the court is willing to reconsider, the evidence is permanently excluded from the trial. In addition to excluding highly prejudicial evidence, the court may instruct opposing counsel to avoid any mention of the evidence in question during trial or in argument to the jury; and to direct persons under their control (counsel’s associates, clients, witnesses, etc.) likewise to avoid such mention.
Collateral Source Payments: Evidence that plaintiff has been reimbursed or received payments from a “collateral source” is generally inadmissible in personal injury cases.
Subrogation: Where an action is filed in plaintiff’s name, evidence that the claim is really owned (in whole or in part) by an insurance company as subrogee is generally inadmissible in a liability action.
Evidence Of Remarriage: Evidence that the widow or widower has remarried (or has marital prospects) is inadmissible to minimize damages in a wrongful death case.
Tax Consequences Of Personal Injury Award: Evidence that plaintiff’s recovery will not be subject to income taxation is inadmissible in a personal injury case.
retention of counsel on a contingency fee basis.
lack of prior accidents with the product or instrumentality causing plaintiff’s injuries.
Prior Accidents To Prove Liability: A motion in limine can be used to exclude evidence of prior similar accidents (e.g., involving same instrumentality) to show causation or liability for the present accident.
Motion To Sever Or Bifurcate: Motions to sever or bifurcate ask for separate trials on various parts of a single case, or to split up several cases previously consolidated for trial. A motion to “sever” asks the court to order separate trials of issues, causes of action, or parties joined in a single action. The purpose of severence is to avoid prejudice, to promote convenience, or to permit greater expedience and economy. [Ca Civ Pro § 1048(b)] A motion to “bifurcate” is a type of severance motion. It asks for a separate trial on the issue of liability before trial of damages.
Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings: A motion for judgment on the pleadings is in effect a general demurrer to the opposing party’s pleadings but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute (Ca Civ Pro § 438), the rules governing demurrers apply.
Motion To Exclude Spectators: By statute, court proceedings are presumptively open to the public. The presumption of openness can be overcome upon a proper showing after hearing.
Trial begins with the selection of the jury.
As each prospective juror is called, the clerk directs him or her to sit in seats designated 1 through 12, starting with seat number 1, and continuing until the jury box is filled. The judge normally will ask the panel whether it would be difficult or impossible for anyone to serve the estimated time of trial. If anyone responds affirmatively, the judge will consider whether to excuse that juror for “undue hardship” within the meaning of Ca Civ Pro § 204(b).
The scope of counsel’s voir dire examination may be limited so long as counsel’s right to conduct a “liberal and probing examination to discover bias and prejudice within the circumstances of each case” is not restricted. Also, whether the jurors are questioned separately or in groups, or everyone on the panel questioned simultaneously, lies within the trial judge’s sound discretion.
To expedite the examination, many judges ask prospective jurors to complete written questionnaires before commencement of voir dire. The questions may be drafted by the judge, counsel or both. (The parties usually stipulate to their use before they are submitted to the panel.) After the jurors complete the questionnaires, a recess is taken to provide counsel the opportunity to review the jurors’ answers. When court is reconvened and voir dire begins, the questionnaire answers can be utilized by the judge and counsel while examining individual jurors.
Voir dire questions must be phrased in a “neutral, nonargumentative form.” Whether leading questions are permitted on voir dire is discretionary with the court. Hypothetical questions may be permitted on voir dire. E.g., prospective jurors may be asked to assume certain facts in order to determine their attitudes regarding such facts and their willingness to apply relevant principles of law. But if the question is unfocused and abstract, the court has discretion to exclude it.
Peremptory Challenges: Each side is entitled to a certain number of peremptory challenges to the prospective jurors seated in the jury box. A “peremptory” challenge is one for which no cause or reason need be given. Except where bias is shown, the trial judge is required to remove a juror so challenged.
A peremptory challenge allows counsel to remove persons believed to be unsympathetic or prejudiced even though counsel cannot prove specific grounds for a challenge for cause. However, peremptory challenges cannot be exercised for systematic exclusion of persons of a particular race, gender or other cognizable group from jury service in civil or criminal cases.
Each party clearly has the right to make an opening statement. [See Ca Civ Pro §§ 607, 631.7] Each party is entitled to make only one opening statement. Plaintiff normally goes first; then defendant. There is no opportunity, therefore, for plaintiff to “rebut” statements made by defendant in its opening.
The amount of time allowed for opening statements rests within the trial judge’s sound discretion. During the pretrial in-chambers conference, the judge normally asks each counsel for an estimate of the time required for his or her opening statement. The judge usually allows the time requested so long as it is within reason.
Neither party is required to make an opening statement and may waive the right to do so. The Defendant may either waive the opening statement or reserve it until the Plaintiff has completed his/her case.
matters as being within counsel’s personal knowledge or belief unless counsel plans to testify as a witness.
An opening statement is not evidence and jurors may not accept it as proof of the matters stated. Furthermore, an opening statement may not be used to argue the case to the jury. Thus, for example, it is improper to discuss issues of law.
Where there are several plaintiffs or defendants who are separately represented, the court generally asks them to agree among themselves on the order in which their opening statements will be made. If they are unable to agree, the court will specify the order of opening statements by the parties on each side.
“Direct examination” is the first examination of a witness upon a matter not within the scope of a previous examination of the witness. [Ca Evid § 760] Basically, it is the process by which a party first elicits testimony from witnesses in support of the party’s own claims or defenses.
No Leading Questions On Direct Examination: Except as discussed below, leading questions are improper on direct (or redirect) examination. [See Ca Evid § 767(a)(1)] A leading question is one that asks the witness to acknowledge facts stated or suggested in the question. In effect, the questioner is doing the testifying and simply asking the witness to affirm what the questioner has stated. [See Ca Evid § 764–leading question “suggests to the witness the answer the examining party desires”] The problem with a leading question is that it substitutes the lawyer’s description of the events in dispute for that of the witness.
Exception: The court has the power to make direct examination “as rapid, as distinct, and as effective as possible for the ascertainment of the truth . . .” (Ca Evid § 765(a)). Moreover, the Code specifically provides that leading questions are permissible “under special circumstances where the interests of justice (so) require.” [Ca Evid § 767(a)] Thus, the trial court has broad discretion to permit leading questions on direct where it is the most efficient manner of obtaining relevant evidence and the danger of improper suggestion is minimal.
Where there are several plaintiffs or defendants, witnesses are cross-examined “in such order as the court directs.” [Ca Evid § 773(a)] Judges usually approve whatever order of cross-examination is agreed upon by coparties with similar interests.
The scope of cross-examination is limited to matters raised on direct examination, which includes the witness’ credibility. [Ca Evid §§ 761, 773(a), 785] The scope of cross-examination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Most courts interpret “scope of the direct” liberally and permit questioning on any subject touched upon during direct examination.
The court has discretion to expand the scope of permissible cross-examination, and may permit the witness to be examined “not within the scope of a previous examination of the witness.” [Ca Evid § 772(c)] Courts are usually quite liberal in allowing cross-examination beyond the scope of the direct. Doing so is viewed as a matter of efficiency because it may avoid the need to recall the witness later in the trial. However, where the court permits the cross-examiner to go outside the scope of the direct, the cross-examiner’s right to use leading questions is limited. The expanded inquiry is in the nature of direct examination and that form of questioning is required.
The cross-examiner is not bound by the witness’ answers. Impeachment is permitted: “The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by any party, including the party calling him.” [Ca Evid § 785].
Leading questions are generally permissible on cross-examination (or re-cross). [Ca Evid § 767(a)] Indeed, the key to successful cross-examination is the ability to control the witness’ answers through use of leading questions. One of the “canons” of cross-examination is to use leading questions wherever possible.
information provided by your own expert.
An expert witness may be impeached by showing the falsity of any matter upon which the expert based his or her opinion (i.e., foundational facts). Sometimes this is done on cross-examination but, more frequently, contradiction is shown by calling other expert witnesses to testify to the nonexistence or error in the data upon which the expert relied.
As the trial progresses, it may be necessary to make on or more motions. Some – but by no means all – such motions are discussed below.
Mandatory Mistrial – Insufficient Number Of Jurors: Sometimes, a number of jurors are excused during trial (for illness or other reason) and there are not enough alternate jurors to take their places. In such cases, a mistrial must be ordered unless the parties stipulate that a lesser number of jurors may render a verdict.
Judge Unable To Complete A Nonjury Trial: In nonjury trials, the facts must be decided by the judge who heard the evidence. If that judge dies or otherwise becomes unavailable before signing and filing the statement of decision (findings and conclusions), the case must be retried by another judge.
A motion for nonsuit operates as a “demurrer” to plaintiff’s evidence. It allows defendant to challenge the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s claims at an early stage of trial without waiving the right to present a defense if the motion is denied. Defendant in effect concedes the truth of plaintiff’s evidence (or the facts asserted in plaintiff’s opening statement where the motion is made after opening statement). The nonsuit motion challenges whether these facts are sufficient as a matter of law to prove a prima facie case.
Because a nonsuit deprives plaintiff of the right to have his or her case determined by a jury, it is proper only under very restrictive circumstances: i.e., only where interpreting the evidence most favorably to plaintiff’s case and most strongly against the defendant and resolving all presumptions, inferences and doubts in favor of plaintiff a judgment for the defendant is required as a matter of law. The motion lies only if there is no substantial conflict in the evidence. In ruling on the motion, the court may not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses.
A nonsuit may be granted on some or all of plaintiff’s claims: If it appears that the evidence presented, or to be presented, supports the granting of the motion as to some but not all of the issues involved in the action, the court shall grant the motion as to those issues and the action shall proceed as to the issues remaining.
In response to a motion for nonsuit, plaintiffs have the right, upon request, to reopen to remedy defects raised by the nonsuit motion: “(I)t is the trial court’s duty, if so requested, to permit the plaintiff to reopen his case and introduce further evidence. The right to present further evidence is waived unless plaintiff requests leave to reopen and makes an offer of proof describing the evidence and explaining how it would cure the deficiencies.
A motion for directed verdict, like a motion for nonsuit, operates as a demurrer to the evidence. It challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s evidence–i.e., whether such evidence makes out a prima facie case of the claim or defense asserted.
Right to reopen: In response to a nonsuit motion, plaintiffs have the right, upon request, to augment their opening statement or reopen their case-in-chief to avoid the nonsuit if they can. There is no similar right to reopen in response to a motion for directed verdict; the matter is discretionary with the trial court.
Denial of nonsuit no bar to directed verdict: A court may grant a directed verdict in favor of the defendant despite its earlier denial of defendant’s motion for nonsuit.
Motion To Reopen Case In Chief: Under certain circumstances, a party may move to reopen its case-in-chief to introduce new evidence on elements of a cause of action or defense. [See Ca Civ Pro § 607(6)] The motion may be made orally or in writing at any time prior to entry of judgment.
Contempt Proceedings: On its own motion, or on motion of any party, the court may cite any person before it for contempt during trial. Contempt is any act, in or out of court, that tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct the court in the performance of its duties.
Each party has the absolute right to present closing argument in civil jury trials. A party employing several lawyers at trial does not have the right to be heard by each of them. The court may (discretionary) limit closing argument to one or more lawyers appearing for that party. Where parties on the same side are represented by separate counsel, each counsel is generally permitted to present closing arguments to the jury on behalf of his or her client.
Neither party is required to make a closing argument. Plaintiff may elect to waive either or both opening and rebuttal argument; and defendant may also elect to waive argument.
Arguments in plaintiff’s rebuttal on matters not raised in defendant’s closing argument.
In addition to the limitations on closing argument generally, plaintiff’s concluding argument should be confined to rebutting arguments raised during the defendant’s closing argument. It is improper to raise for the first time during plaintiff’s final closing argument matters not raised in either the opening or defense argument.
neutral, unslanted and free of argument.
A book entitled “California Jury Instructions, Civil” (commonly referred to as the “Book of Approved Jury Instructions” or “BAJI” (9th Ed.)) contains standard jury instructions for use in civil jury trials. The BAJI instructions were drafted by “The Committee on Standard Jury Instructions, Civil” of the Los Angeles Superior Court. However, the Los Angeles Superior Court no longer maintains BAJI. Instead, BAJI is maintained and updated by “The Civil Committee on California Jury Instructions” (judges and lawyers, including several who were members of the former Los Angeles Superior Court Committee).
Jury instructions based on the language of relevant state or federal statutes are proper. Statutory language should be quoted verbatim rather than restated or reworded. Paraphrasing can result in an erroneous instruction.
Proposed jury instructions must be submitted to the court and served within the time periods set forth in Ca Civ Pro § 607a (below) or such other periods as are required under local rules or practice. Proposed jury instructions must comply with statutory requirements and Judicial Council Rules regarding form and format. [Ca Civ Pro § 607a; Ca Rules of Court Rule 201 & 229(b)-(d)] Consider using copies of the printed Judicial Council instructions as modified to fit your case. The instructions are available at the California Courts Web site (www.courtinfo.ca.gov). Many courts stock and sell copies of the BAJI forms at nominal cost. Where printed forms are not available, typewritten copies may be submitted instead.
Counsel have the right to discuss the applicable “law” during final argument. Therefore, the court is under a duty to resolve any uncertainty regarding which instructions will be given, refused or modified before final argument commences. If necessary, the court must delay argument until the uncertainty is resolved and counsel so advised.
Traditionally, the court “charges” the jury (i.e., reads the instructions to them) after final argument by counsel has concluded and just before the jury retires to begin deliberations. However, the trial court has discretion to reorder trial proceedings “for special reasons.” [Ca Civ Pro § 607] Indeed, it is becoming common practice for courts to instruct jurors at various times during trial. Many judges routinely instruct on introductory matters at the outset of trial and on substantive law matters before closing argument begins.
After submission of the case, the jurors must be “kept together, in some convenient place, under charge of an officer” (bailiff or court attendant) until they arrive at a verdict or are discharged by the court. [See Ca Civ Pro § 613] All courts are equipped with jury deliberation rooms enabling jurors to discuss the case and endeavor to arrive at a verdict in complete privacy. [See Ca Civ Pro § 216–board of supervisors required to provide jury deliberation room(s).
Ordinarily, one of the first orders of business is selection of a “presiding juror” (jury foreperson). The court may instruct the jurors that when they go to the jury room, the first thing they should do is “choose a presiding juror” who “should see to it that . . . discussions are orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.” [CACI 5009; see BAJI 15.50-15.52–upon retiring, “select one of your number to act as foreperson” . . . and “your foreperson shall preside over your deliberations”.
During deliberations, jurors may require additional information in order to arrive at a verdict; e.g., they may want some portion of the testimony reread, or they may wish to be instructed on some point of law. The procedure for handling jury requests for information during deliberations is set forth in Ca Civ Pro § 614. Jurors wanting to hear testimony reread or further instructions by the court “may require the officer to conduct them into Court.” [Ca Civ Pro § 614] The court must consider the jury’s request for additional information in open court (see Ca Civ Pro § 614) and on the record (Ca Civ Pro § 269).
A juror’s statements and conduct during trial or deliberations may disclose a bias concealed on voir dire examination. This includes false answers to voir dire questions which if answered truthfully would have been a basis for challenge for cause (e.g., questions regarding juror’s experience or knowledge of facts pertinent to the case). Such misconduct violates the parties’ right to trial by a fair and impartial jury.
“Jurors cannot, without violation of their oath, receive or communicate to fellow jurors information from sources outside the evidence in the case . . .” Also, juror experiments during deliberations are misconduct if they result in the juror’s discovering information outside the scope of the evidence received in court. Rationale: All evidence must be taken in open court and thus subject to challenge by the parties.
The right to jury trial has been expressly or impliedly waived by the parties (and the court is unwilling to grant relief from the waiver if such relief is sought).
Closing argument is discretionary in nonjury trials. The statutory provision for closing argument in jury trials (Ca Civ Pro § 607, para. 7) does not apply in nonjury trials. Oral argument in a civil proceeding tried before the court is a privilege, not a right, which is accorded the parties by the court in its discretion.
Because the court gets to “weigh the evidence,” judges in nonjury trials often admit evidence that would be excluded in a jury trial. Also, judges in nonjury trials are more likely to ask questions of witnesses than they would in a jury trial. But, improper questions from a judge are as objectionable as improper questions from counsel.
The court may render a judgment at the close of the trial or take it under submission and notify the parties of the court’s decision later. However, if a case remains pending and undetermined for 90 days or more after its submission for decision, a judge may not receive his or her salary. [Ca Const. Art. VI, § 19; Ca Govt § 68210].
Upon request of any party in a nonjury trial, the judge “shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues . . .” [Ca Civ Pro § 632] The statement of decision serves several purposes. It maforce the court to reconsider its tentative decision. It my facilitate a motion for new trial by forcing the trial court to state the precise facts upon which its decision is made. It facilitates appellate review by exposing the exact ground on which the judgment rests. On the other hand, it may discourage futile appeals for the same reason. And, a statement of decision facilitates determination of the matters adjudicated for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
A statement of decision is not required unless requested by one of the parties (see Ca Civ Pro § 632). Absent such request, appellate review is effectively limited to questions of law: The appellate court will presume the trial court made whatever findings of fact are necessary to support the judgment.
Special verdict–whereby the jury makes factual findings from which the court draws legal conclusions and renders judgment based thereon.
A general verdict is “that by which (jurors) pronounce generally upon all or any of the issues, either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant . . .” [Ca Civ Pro § 624] A general verdict is the most common type of jury verdict. The jury simply renders a decision in favor of one party or the other on all issues submitted to them. A general verdict is the most common type of jury verdict. The jury simply renders a decision in favor of one party or the other on all issues submitted to them.
A general verdict with special interrogatories combines the above verdict forms by instructing the jury to return a general verdict while simultaneously answering specific questions of fact. [See Ca Civ Pro § 625] This allows the jury to decide directly which party should win while the special interrogatories test the validity of the general verdict by determining that all facts essential to the verdict were established to the satisfaction of the jury.
A special verdict is one “by which the jury finds the facts only, leaving the judgment to the Court.” [Ca Civ Pro § 624] A special verdict must present conclusions of fact (i.e., ultimate facts) established by the evidence rather than the evidence itself. Those ultimate facts must be presented so that “nothing shall remain to the Court but to draw from them conclusions of law.” [Ca Civ Pro § 624] Unlike a general verdict that implies findings in favor of the prevailing party, a special verdict requires the jury to determine every controverted fact issue. A “partial special verdict” may be entered where the jury has decided all the ultimate facts necessary on a “separate and severable” cause of action. The remaining causes of action must be retried, of course, before a final judgment can be entered.
Where a general verdict is used, at least nine of the 12 jurors must agree that each element of the cause of action alleged was proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
When the jury foreperson states (to the bailiff or courtroom attendant) that a verdict has been reached, the jury must be conducted into court. The judge will direct the foreperson to hand the verdict to the bailiff or courtroom attendant, who will deliver it to the judge. [See Ca Civ Pro § 618] The judge will then examine the verdict to determine whether it is in proper form (“in writing, signed by the foreman”) and sufficient (covering the issues submitted). If the verdict appears sufficient, the judge will hand it to the clerk to read to the jury and the parties in open court. The clerk will then read the verdict out loud and ask the jurors if it is their verdict.
The court has discretion to deny costs if the amount recovered is less than the court’s minimum jurisdictional limit.
Where other than monetary relief is recovered “and in situations other than as specified”, the “prevailing party” is determined by the court and the award of costs is discretionary. [Ca Civ Pro § 1032(a)(4)] The court may (discretionary) allow costs where a party obtains relief in the form of a permanent injunction rather than damages. Costs are also discretionary where parties prevail on declaratory relief claims without recovering damages.
An item neither specifically allowable under Ca Civ Pro § 1033.5(a) nor prohibited under § 1033.5(b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the court’s discretion.
The losing party may dispute any or all of the items in the prevailing party’s costs memorandum by a motion to strike or tax costs. [See Ca Rules of Court Rule 870(b)] Technically, a motion to strike challenges the entire costs bill (e.g., on the ground the claimant is not the “prevailing party”), whereas a motion to tax challenges particular items or amounts. But the terms are often used interchangeably and there is no difference in the procedural rules. [See Ca Rules of Court Rule 870(b)(2)] A motion to strike or tax costs must be served and filed within 15 days after service of the costs memorandum. This period is extended as provided by Ca Civ Pro § 1013 if the costs memorandum was served by mail. [Ca Rules of Court Rule 870(b)(1)] Delay in challenging (or failure to challenge) a costs bill waives any objection to the costs claimed thereon. Even so, the court has discretion to grant Ca Civ Pro § 473(b) relief for “inadvertence” or “excusable neglect” to consider late-filed motions.
When authorized by contract, statute or “law,” reasonable attorney fees are “allowable costs.” [Ca Civ Pro § 1033.5(a)(10)(A)] Hundreds of California statutes authorize court awards of attorney fees in specific types of actions. Some statutes make fee awards to a successful party mandatory. Other statutes make fee awards discretionary.
A JNOV motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s evidence (“a demurrer to the evidence”). I.e., it challenges whether that evidence was sufficient to prove the claims or defenses asserted by the opposing party and now embodied in the jury’s verdict. It thus has the same function as a motion for nonsuit or directed verdict, the only difference being that the JNOV motion lies after a verdict for the opposing party has been rendered.
Motion For New Trial: A motion for new trial asks the trial court to reexamine one or more issues of fact or law after a trial and decision by judge or jury. [See Ca Civ Pro §§ 656, 657] Courts have no inherent power to grant a new trial. “The right to a new trial is purely statutory. The principal statutory authority for new trial motions is Ca Civ Pro § 657. Other relevant statutes are Ca Civ Pro §§ 655-663.2 and 914.
Jury Irregularity: “Irregularity in the proceedings of the jury” – The precise meaning and scope of this phrase has never been judicially determined.
Jury misconduct (Ca Civ Pro § 657(2)): This refers to such things as concealed bias, misconduct during deliberations, etc.
Excessive damages (Ca Civ Pro § 657(5)): This ground in effect asks for a limited new trial–i.e., a new trial limited to the issues of damages (findings re liability, etc. to be kept intact).
Inadequate damages (Ca Civ Pro § 657(5)): “Inadequate damages” is likewise ground for a new trial motion. Again, this ground asks for a limited new trial–i.e., a new trial limited to the issues of damages (findings re liability, etc. to be kept intact).
Insufficient evidence (Ca Civ Pro § 657(6)): “6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision . . .” This is one of the most frequent grounds for new trial motions. It is also one as to which the trial judge has the broadest power.
Motion for Relief From Judgment: A court has power within 6 months after judgment entry to grant relief from the judgment on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” [Ca Civ Pro § 473(b)] Relief under Ca Civ Pro § 473 is generally discretionary. But it is mandatory where the moving party’s attorney files a “mea culpa” affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect (need not be excusable neglect).

References: v. 
 § 1048
 § 438
 § 204
 § 760
 § 767
 § 764
 § 765
 § 767
 § 773
 § 772
 § 785
 § 767
 § 607
 § 607
 § 607
 § 607
 § 613
 § 216
 § 614
 § 614
 § 614
 § 269
 § 607
 § 19
 § 68210
 § 632
 § 632
 § 624
 § 625
 § 624
 § 624
 § 618
 § 1032
 § 1033
 § 1033
 § 1013
 § 473
 § 1033
 § 657
 § 657
 § 657
 § 657
 § 657
 § 473
 § 473