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

Heading: Court of Appeal Cases Before Our 1997 Decision in Van Beurden

Text: In light of the nonparallel provisions of the two statutory schemes at issue, one for entry of judgment and one for posttrial motions, it is not surprising that the issue of deadlines for posttrial motions has been addressed in a number of Court of Appeal decisions. In Tri-County Elevator Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 271, 185 Cal. Rptr. 208 ( Tri-County ), the prevailing party on March 22, 1982, mailed to the losing party a conformed copy of the judgment showing the date on which it was filed. On March 29, the court clerk mailed notice of entry of judgment to the losing party, which did not file its notice of intention to move for a new trial until April 9, 1982. ( Id. at p. 274, 185 Cal.Rptr. 208.) The trial court denied the motion because it was filed 18 days after service of the conformed copy of the judgment and therefore beyond the 15-day jurisdictional window in which a notice of intention to move for a new trial must be filed. ( Ibid. ) The Court of Appeal denied writ relief to the losing party. The court concluded that once section 664.5 had been amended to impose the duty of giving notice of entry on the party submitting the judgment for entry, a party who served an adverse party with a conformed copy of the judgment showing the date the judgment had been filed with the court clerk had in fact given written notice, in substance and effect, of the entry of the judgment sufficient to trigger the 15-day period to file a notice of intention to move for a new trial under section 659. ( Tri-County, supra, 135 Cal.App.3d at pp. 275-276, 185 Cal.Rptr. 208.) This was true because the judgment was filed in a county that did not maintain a judgment book, but instead kept a copy of the judgment in its file of actions. ( Id. at p. 276, 185 Cal.Rptr. 208.) The date of filing such a judgment with the clerk is the date of its entry. (§ 668.5.) The Court of Appeal rejected the contention that the prevailing party's failure to file its proof of service on the opposing party at the same time it filed notice of entry of judgment (§ 664.5) was a failure by the prevailing party to comply with the requirements of section 659. ( Tri-County, supra, at p. 277, 185 Cal.Rptr. 208.) In sum, the Court of Appeal concluded that the procedure set forth in section 664.5 is inapplicable in determining, for purposes of section 659, the sufficiency of notice of entry of judgment given by a party.  ( Ibid., italics added.) That reasoning was followed by the Court of Appeal in National Advertising Co. v. City of Rohnert Park (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 614, 206 Cal.Rptr. 696, which addressed a related problem of the timeliness of a notice of appeal. At issue there was a rule of court governing the deadlines for filing a notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 2(a).) The relevant version of rule 2(a) required service of written notice of entry of judgment ... upon the party filing the notice of appeal. ( National Advertising, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at p. 618, fn. 1, 206 Cal. Rptr. 696.) Relying on Tri-County 's reading of section 659's parallel language calling for written notice of entry of judgment, the Court of Appeal in National Advertising concluded that serving an endorsed copy of the judgment showing the date of its entry was service of a document sufficient to give written notice of entry of judgment so as to start the 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal. ( National Advertising, supra, 160 Cal. App.3d at p. 618, 206 Cal.Rptr. 696.) And in Ramirez v. Moran (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 431, 247 Cal.Rptr. 117, the Court of Appeal held that a conformed copy of a judgment was a document sufficient to give written notice of the entry of judgment to start the time in which a posttrial motion must be brought. In Ramirez, the defendant's counsel mailed a conformed copy of the judgment to the plaintiffs counsel along with a cover letter mentioning enclosure of a conformed copy. ( Id. at p. 436, 247 Cal.Rptr. 117.) The Court of Appeal concluded that these documents gave sufficient notice of entry of judgment to trigger the 15 days in which the plaintiff had to file his notice of intention to move for a new trial (§ 659), notwithstanding the absence of a customary proof of service in the form of an affidavit (see § 1013a). ( Ramirez, supra, 201 Cal. App.3d at p. 436, 247 Cal.Rptr. 117.) What matters, the Court of Appeal said, is not proof of service, but the sufficiency of notice of entry of judgment. ( Ibid. )