From the Editor


Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich Editor-in-Chief


Appellate Reports and Cases in Brief Recent cases of interest to members of the plaintiff’s bar


About this Issue


Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich Editor-in-Chief


Collins v. Sutter Memorial Hospital


(2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ (3d Dist.) Who needs to know about this case:


Lawyers seeking (or opposing) new-trial motions, particularly after a motion for summary judgment Why it’s important: Clarifies the tim-


Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich About


this Issue


ing and procedures governing new-trial motions.


Book Review


Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich Editor-in-Chief


AR TECH Forensic Experts


Trial lawyers need a mediator who was one.


Jack Daniels


Available exclusively through Judicate West


1.800.488.8805 Any case, anytime, anywhere


86— The Advocate Magazine JULY 2011


Experienced Engineers Advanced Degrees Extensive Trial Experience


Accident Reconstruction


Vehicle Collision Analysis, Speed, Time Motion History, Biomechanics Vehicle Components: brakes, seats, seatbelts, etc.


Product Liability Construction Slip/Trip & Fall


Failure Analysis, Machinery, Guarding, Safety, Industrial & Consumer Products


Code Analysis Stairway, Ramps, Doors, Windows, Guard Rails, Roof, Walkways, Pools Industrial & Residential


Coefficient of Friction. Trip Hazard, Lighting 18075 Ventura Blvd., Suite 209, Encino, CA 91316


818-344-2700 Fax 818-344-3777


Synopsis: Plaintiff sued Sutter for


medical malpractice. Sutter sought and obtained summary judgment, and served a “notice of entry of judgment” upon entry of the order granting summary judgment – but before entry of the actual judgment. Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to move for new trial 15 days after service of the notice. The notice of intent cited only a single statutory ground, that the “decision is ‘against law’ as provided by


Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subd. 6.”


Judgment was entered on the sum-


mary judgment after the notice of intent to move for new trial, and notice of entry of judgment was entered by the defen- dant. Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities substantively argued that the trial court’s order was legally erro- neous. Defendants’ opposition to the motion addressed this ground. Plaintiff’s reply expressly cited “error of law” under section 657, subd. (7) as a basis for the motion. The trial court heard argument on


Forensic Experts, I


the motion on November 9, 2009. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel advised the court that because the notice of intent to move for new trial had been filed on September 25, 2009, the last day for the court to rule on the motion was 60 days thereafter, November 24, 2009. Sutter did not dispute this, nor did it advise the court that, in its view, the last day to rule was the day of the hearing, November 9. The trial court granted the motion by minute order dated November 18, 2009. It directed plaintiff’s counsel to prepare a formal order. The next day, plaintiff’s counsel advised the court by letter that the court itself was required to prepare the new-trial order. The letter again advised the court that the last day to issue the order was November 24, 2009. Sutter did not respond to the letter. The court issued an order granting the motion on November 24, 2009, stating that it was granted because the summary judgment resulted from an “error in law” under Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subd. 7. On appeal, Sutter argued that the


Slip/Trip & Fall Coefficient or Friction. Trip Hazard, Lig Forensic Experts, Inc. 18075 Ventura Blvd., Suite 209, Encino, CA


motion was procedurally flawed because it was granted on a ground (legal error) that was not stated in the notice of intent, which referenced only “decision against law), and because the court granted the


818-344-270 Fax 818-344-377


Experienced Engineers Advanced Degrees Extensive Trial Exper


Accident Reconstruct Product Liability Construction


Vehicle Collision Analysis, Speed, Tim Motion History, Biomechanics Vehicle Components: brakes, seats, seatbelts


Failure Analysis, Machinery, Guarding Safety, Industrial & Consumer Produc


Code Analysis Stairway, Ramps, Door Windows, Guard Rails, Roof, Walkwa Pools Industrial & Residential


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104