We conclude that Code of Civil Procedure section 659a does not deprive a court of fundamental jurisdiction to consider affidavits submitted after the 30-day deadline set forth in the statute. Because the Hospital did not object to the timeliness of the affidavits in the trial court, it may not raise this issue for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.And concludes:
We hold that the trial court had fundamental jurisdiction to consider Kabran‘s allegedly untimely filed affidavits in support of her motion for a new trial. The Hospital, having failed to object to the affidavits‘ timeliness in the trial court, may not challenge the trial court‘s reliance on those affidavits for the first time on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.[Here's a nice soundbite from the opinion: "jurisdictional rules are mandatory, but mandatory rules are not necessarily jurisdictional."]
Looking for a punny anti-SLAPP opinion (filled with hunting puns)? Search no further than Judge Seeborg's Safari Club and Whipple opinion here.
Posts
