CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES NEW TRIAL PROCEDURES

Those who are contemplating a posttrial motion for a new trial after suffering an adverse judgment should keep in mind a tricky procedural issue that is the subject of a California Supreme Court decision this week. On July 2, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Oakland Raiders v. National Football League, which presented the question of the standard of review on an appeal from an order granting a new trial when the trial court fails to follow the statutory requirement for a specification of reasons to support the ruling.

In Oakland Raiders, the trial court ordered a new trial based on jury misconduct, but did not specifically identify the acts of misconduct in question. The Supreme Court held that this failure to provide a proper specification of reasons for its order meant the appellate court should "independently" review the grounds for a new trial. By this the Supreme Court meant that the appellate court should not defer to an implied resolution of conflicts in the evidence by the trial court that would support a finding that misconduct had occurred. And because the post-trial juror declarations were in conflict with respect to the misconduct allegations, the Supreme Court held the order for a new trial could not survive this heightened standard of review.

The result of the Oakland Raiders decision will be that appellate courts will be less likely to "save" the rulings of trial judges who trip over the procedural rules. Counsel overseeing NEW TRIAL motions must be even more vigilant than before to ensure that the trial court supports a favorable ruling with an adequate specification of reasons.

Click here to see the Supreme Court's decision.

For further information, contact Daniel Gonzalez at (818) 995-0800 or send an e-mail to him at dgonzalez@horvitzlevy.com.

www.horvitzlevy.com

If you do not wish to continue to receive these informational bulletins, please e-mail
jpaul@horvitzlevy.com with a subject line "UNSUBSCRIBE."