CCP section 650 allows trial courts to rule on new trial motions within 60 days of notice of entry of judgment, or else the motion is automatically denied. This time frame is mandatory and jurisdictional. Can a trial court avoid the consequences of not ruling within 60 days by issuing a late order but deeming it timely nunc pro tunc? Cute, right? But 2/7 makes clear here today, "The answer is no."For an untimely appeal story, read here.
Yesterday's DJ featured Gary Watt's article California Anti-SLAPP in the 9th Circuit: Can it Survive? about the recent opinion here. he concludes:
At what point, if the whittling and chopping continues, will the conflict-avoiding, "harmonized" version of California's anti-SLAPP statute become only a shadow of itself? And given the disparate treatment, depending on state versus federal forum, will the twin goals of the Erie doctrine, "discouragement of forum shopping and avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws" be forgotten?
Posts
