Opinion ID: 2639460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Court's Decision in Van Beurden

Text: In 1997, this court decided Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th 51, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 166, 931 P.2d 344. The question there was whether the court clerk's mailing to the parties of a file-stamped copy of the judgment with proof of service triggered section 660's 60-day period in which a trial court must rule on a motion for a new trial. We held that to be a clerk's mailed notice of entry of judgment under section 664.5, the notice must affirmatively state that it was given upon `order of the court' or `under section 664.5.' ( Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 64, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 166, 931 P.2d 344.) The file-stamped copy of the judgment sent by the clerk did neither. Unless the motion for a new trial was timely, it did not extend the time to appeal. Accordingly, we observed that the copy of the superior court clerk's mailed notice and the certificate of its mailing maintained in the court file would permit an appellate court to readily determine whether an appeal was timely. ( Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 64-65, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 166, 931 P.2d 344.) Having found that the notice sent by the clerk (§ 664.5, subd. (b)) was insufficient to start the 15-day period in which to file a notice of intention to move for a new trial, the Van Beurden court addressed whether any other event had triggered the 15-day period. The court stated that unless notice consistent with its reading of section 664.5 is given by the clerk, the time for ruling on a motion for a new trial will be shortened only if the party submitting the order or judgment for entry serves notice of entry of judgment on all the parties, files the original notice with the court, and files a proof of service as provided in section 664.5, subdivision (a)(2). ( Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 65, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 166, 931 P.2d 344, italics added.) This comment was made without reference to the facts in Van Beurden, because there the prevailing party had made no attempt to give notice of entry of judgment to the party filing a notice of intention to move for a new trial. As discussed below, the Courts of Appeal have sought, with difficulty, to reconcile that comment in Van Beurden with the statutory language of the posttrial motion statutes and with the pre- Van Beurden cases, which required neither a separate document entitled notice of entry of judgment nor a filing of that document in the trial court along with a proof of service.