Supreme Court of California Justia
Docket No. S104997
Palmer v. GTE


Filed 6/26/03

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBBIE PALMER,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
S104997
v.
Ct.App. 2/3 B133517
GTE CALIFORNIA, INC.,
Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. PC014620Z
Defendant and Appellant.
____________________________________)

Motions for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are
subject to strict time limits that begin to run when the party seeking such relief is
served with a written notice of entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 629, 659,
660.)1 A party intending to move for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict must do so within 15 days of such service. (§§ 659, 629.)
Is the statutory requirement of giving written notice of entry of judgment
satisfied by serving a copy of the file-stamped judgment? The answer is “yes,” at
least in every county that no longer maintains a judgment book.2 To start the

1
All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
2
Under the traditional method for “entering” a civil judgment in California,
dating from the Statutes of 1851 (Stats. 1851, ch. 8, § 201, p. 82), the clerk of the
superior court made a notation in a book known as the “judgment book.” (County
of Los Angeles v. Ranger Ins. Co.
(1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 61, 63.) Under this
traditional method, entry of judgment could occur on a day other than the day on

(Fn. continued on next page)
1



statutory time periods for bringing and ruling on motions for a new trial and for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is not necessary to serve on the opposing
party a separate document entitled notice of entry of judgment and to file in the
trial court that document, as well as a copy of the judgment and proof of its
service.
I
Plaintiff Debbie Palmer began working for defendant GTE California
(GTE) in 1979. In April 1995, Palmer sued GTE and two supervisors in superior
court for sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, and false imprisonment. In
1998, the trial court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants. On
February 11, 1999, after several weeks of trial, the jury returned a special verdict

(Fn. continued from previous page)

which the clerk filed the original judgment in the superior court file; therefore,
giving notice of the filing date did not give notice of the date of entry.

In 1974, by enacting section 668.5, the Legislature provided an alternative
method for entering a judgment. (Stats. 1974, ch. 1169, § 2, p. 2503; see also
Stats. 1983, ch. 464, § 1, p. 1794 [amending § 668.5].) Under section 668.5, a
county may dispense with the judgment book if, before filing the original
judgment in the superior court file, the clerk records the judgment on microfilm or
enters it either in the register of actions or in the court’s electronic data-processing
system. Under this newer method, “the date of filing the judgment with the clerk
shall constitute the date of entry.” (§ 668.5.)

Today, few if any counties in this state still use the traditional judgment
book system for entering judgments. In counties using the newer system, a
judgment’s date of filing, as shown on a file stamp, is the judgment’s date of entry.
Thus, in these counties, serving a file-stamped copy of a judgment gives notice of
the judgment’s date of entry.

Given the near universal adoption of the newer system, the concept of
“entry,” as distinct from filing, appears to have lost its utility, and its survival has
become a frequent source of confusion, as this case illustrates. Its complete
removal from our system of civil procedure will, however, require an extensive
statutory revision by the Legislature.
2



finding GTE liable for $790,000 in damages to Palmer on her claims of gender
harassment in the workplace and false imprisonment.
On February 24, 1999, judgment was entered. On February 26, 1999,
Palmer’s attorney mailed to GTE’s counsel a photocopy of the file-stamped and
dated judgment. GTE’s counsel and the courtroom clerk then told Palmer’s
attorney that serving a photocopy of the conformed judgment did not comply with
section 664.5, which requires that a document entitled notice of entry of judgment
be prepared, served, and filed in the trial court along with proof of its service. In
response, Palmer’s counsel on March 10, 1999, filed in the trial court a document
entitled notice of entry of judgment, to which were attached a copy of the
judgment, a proof of the earlier service by mail on February 26 of the conformed
copy of the judgment, and a proof of service by mail on March 9 of the notice of
entry of judgment.
On March 24, 1999, 26 days after Palmer had served GTE with a copy of
the conformed judgment, GTE moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
and filed notice of its intention to move for a new trial. On May 3, 1999, 66 days
after Palmer served the copy of the conformed judgment, the trial court made its
rulings. On Palmer’s claim of gender harassment in the workplace, the court
granted GTE’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and, if its order
were to be vacated or set aside on appeal, the court alternatively ordered a new
trial on that claim. On Palmer’s claim of false imprisonment, the court denied
GTE’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but it ordered a new trial
on that claim unless Palmer consented to having the $175,000 awarded on that
claim reduced to $35,000.
Palmer moved to strike these orders because GTE had not filed its moving
papers within the 15-day jurisdictional window after the date of “service . . . by
any party of written notice of entry of judgment” (§ 659), and because the trial
3

court had not ruled on the motions within the 60-day jurisdictional period after
such service (§ 660). The trial court denied Palmer’s motion.
On July 1, 1999, Palmer filed a notice of appeal from the order granting a
new trial on the false imprisonment claim and granting judgment notwithstanding
the verdict on the gender harassment claim. On July 20, GTE filed its notice of
appeal from the judgment and from the order denying GTE’s motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict on the claim of false imprisonment.
On appeal, Palmer argued that GTE’s motions for a new trial and for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict were untimely, and therefore the trial court’s
order granting those motions was void, having been made after the trial court’s
jurisdiction had lapsed. The Court of Appeal agreed. Citing sections 659 and 660,
it concluded that the time limits for bringing and ruling on these posttrial motions
are triggered by serving “written notice of entry of judgment.” (§§ 659, subd. 2,
660.)
The Court of Appeal rejected GTE’s contention that to start the time frames
for these posttrial motions the serving party must not only serve written notice of
entry of judgment, as required by sections 629, 659, and 660, but must also
comply with additional requirements set out in section 664.5. Section 664.5
provides that “the party submitting an order or judgment for entry shall prepare
and mail a copy of the notice of entry of judgment to all parties” and “shall file
with the court the original notice of entry of judgment together with the proof of
service.” (§ 664.5, subd. (a).) GTE argued below, as it does here, that these
posttrial motion time frames begin only when, in addition to serving written notice
that judgment has been entered, the party giving notice files in the trial court an
original notice of entry of judgment document, accompanied by proof of its
service. Rejecting that view, the Court of Appeal concluded that a written notice
of entry of judgment served by a party need not be served pursuant to section
4

664.5 to start the statutory 15-day period (§ 659) for a party to move for a new
trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to start the 60-day period
(§ 660) for the court to rule on the motions.
Thus, the Court of Appeal held that GTE had not timely moved for a new
trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, rendering void the trial court’s
order granting those two motions. Because the filing of the two motions did not
extend the time to appeal, however, the Court of Appeal found plaintiff Palmer’s
notice of appeal to be untimely, having been filed more than 60 days after she
served GTE with “a document entitled ‘notice of entry’ of judgment.” (Cal. Rules
of Court, former rule 2(a)(2).) GTE’s cross-appeal was timely, but the Court of
Appeal concluded there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict in
favor of Palmer on her claims of false imprisonment and gender harassment in the
workplace, and thus upheld the judgment.
We granted GTE’s petition for review because of disagreement in the
Courts of Appeal on what constitutes service of notice of entry of judgment
sufficient to trigger the statutory deadlines for bringing and determining motions
for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
II
Defendant GTE frames the question before us this way: “What act
commences the jurisdictional time frame for filing and deciding posttrial motions”
when the clerk of the court does not mail notice of entry of judgment to the
parties? To answer that question, we must consider the interplay between section
664.5, which describes mailing notice of entry of judgment, and sections 629, 659,
and 660, which govern the filing of posttrial motions for a new trial and judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.
Section 664.5 provides: “[I]n any contested action or special proceeding
. . . the party submitting the order or judgment for entry shall prepare and mail a
5

copy of the notice of entry of judgment to all parties who have appeared . . . and
shall file with the court the original notice of entry of judgment together with the
proof of service by mail.” (§ 664.5, subd. (a).) Citing that language, GTE argues
that the jurisdictional time for filing and ruling on motions for a new trial or for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict is triggered only by serving a document
entitled notice of entry of judgment, and filing in the trial court the original
document and proof of its service. We disagree.
A.
The
Statutory
Scheme
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (§ 629) or a notice of
intention to move for a new trial (§ 659) may be filed with the court clerk and
served on each adverse party “[b]efore the entry of judgment.” (§ 659, subd. 1.)
Otherwise, they must be brought by the earliest of three deadlines: (1) within 15
days of “the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court
pursuant to Section 664.5”; (2) within 15 days of service on the moving party “by
any party of written notice of entry of judgment”; or (3) “within 180 days after
entry of judgment.” (§§ 629, 659, subd. 2.) The 60 days during which the trial
court has jurisdiction to rule on such a motion is similarly linked to the clerk’s
mailing or a party’s service of written notice of entry of judgment.3 Neither

3
“[T]he power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 60
days from and after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the
court pursuant to Section 664.5 or 60 days from and after service on the moving
party by any party of written notice of the entry of the judgment . . . .” (§ 660.)

“The court shall not rule upon the motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict until the expiration of the time within which a motion for a new trial must
be served and filed, and if a motion for a new trial has been filed with the court by
the aggrieved party, the court shall rule upon both motions at the same time. The
power of the court to rule on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
shall not extend beyond the last date upon which it has the power to rule on a
motion for a new trial.” (§ 629.)
6



section 659 nor section 660 expressly requires the party serving notice either to
prepare a separate document entitled notice of entry of judgment or to file any
document.
In construing a statute, our role is limited to ascertaining the Legislature’s
intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999)
21 Cal.4th 984, 1000; People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 621.) We look
first to the words of the statute because they are the most reliable indicator of
legislative intent. (In re J.W. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 200, 209.) If the statutory
language on its face answers the question, that answer is binding unless we
conclude the language is ambiguous or it does not accurately reflect the
Legislature’s intent. (People v. Broussard (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1067, 1071-1072;
Burden v. Snowden (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562; see Esberg v. Union Oil Co. (2002)
28 Cal.4th 262, 268.)
As the Court of Appeal noted, the posttrial motion sections (§§ 659, 660)
involved here peg their jurisdictional time limits to mailing of notice of entry of
judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to section 664.5, but neither section
refers to section 664.5 in describing service by a party. Thus, the plain language
of sections 659 and 660 expressly incorporates the provisions of section 664.5
only when the court clerk mails notice of entry of judgment.
Instead of looking first to the language of posttrial motion sections 629,
659, and 660, which govern the trial court’s jurisdiction over motions for a new
trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, GTE looks first at section 664.5 to
determine what it requires of a party represented by counsel who submits a
judgment (or order) for entry.
Section
664.5
requires
the party who has submitted a judgment to the trial
court for entry to prepare a separate document entitled notice of entry of judgment,
to mail a copy “to all parties who have appeared,” and to file in the trial court the
7

original notice of entry and proof of its service on the opposing party by mail.
(§ 664.5, subd. (a).) GTE argues that both the language of section 664.5 and this
court’s opinion in Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide
Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51 (Van Beurden), which we discuss
in part C., post, compel reading all the requirements of section 664.5 into the
posttrial motion sections, which say nothing about several of these formalities.
As noted earlier, section 664.5 provides that in “any contested action . . .
the party submitting an order or judgment for entry shall prepare and mail a copy
of the notice of entry of judgment to all parties who have appeared . . . and shall
file with the court the original notice of entry of judgment together with the proof
of service by mail.” (§ 664.5, subd. (a), italics added.) The Legislature revised
this provision in 1981 and 1982 in response to trial courts’ concern over the costs
entailed by the existing requirement that the court clerk mail to the parties all
notices of entry of judgment. (Stats. 1981, ch. 904, § 1, p. 3437; Stats. 1982, ch.
559, § 1, pp. 2505-2506; Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Background of Assem. Bill No.
1925 (1981-1982 Reg. Sess.) June 25, 1981, p. 1.) The legislative history
indicates a concern that the added language does “not speak to” what event
triggers the time limits for “motions for new trial or motions to vacate.” (Sen.
Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1925 (1981-1982 Reg. Sess.), as
amended May 27, 1981, p. 3.) Notwithstanding that prescient expression of
concern, the Legislature has not amended the relevant provision of the posttrial
motion sections since 1982, when it amended section 664.54 to place the burden on

4
The 1982 amendment to section 664.5 excluded certain family law matters
from the general rule in civil actions that the prevailing party prepare and mail
notice of entry of judgment, and instead left the responsibility for giving such
notice with the court clerk. (Stats. 1982, ch. 559, § 1, pp. 2505-2506.) Notice of

(Fn. continued on next page)
8



the party submitting a judgment to prepare, file, and serve notice of its entry.
Thus, those sections continue to peg their time limits to “service . . . by any party
of written notice of entry of judgment.” (§ 659, 660.)


B.
Court of Appeal Cases Before Our 1997 Decision in Van

Beurden
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
(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.) 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

(Fn. continued from previous page)

entry of judgment in many family law proceedings must be made on a standard
Judicial Council form. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.134.)
9



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.) 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.) 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.) 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, 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.)
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.)
10

And
in
Ramirez v. Moran (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 431, 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 plaintiff’s counsel along with a cover letter mentioning
enclosure of a conformed copy. (Id. at p. 436.) 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.)
What matters, the Court of Appeal said, is not proof of service, but the sufficiency
of notice of entry of judgment. (Id. at p. 436.)

C.
This Court’s Decision in Van Beurden
In 1997, this court decided Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th 51. The
question there was whether the court clerk’s mailing to the parties of a file-
stamped copy of the judgment with proof of service triggered section 660’s 60-day
period in which a trial court must rule on a motion for a new trial. We held that to
be a clerk’s mailed notice of entry of judgment under section 664.5, the notice
“must affirmatively state that it was given upon ‘order of the court’ or ‘under
section 664.5.’ ” (Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 64.) The file-stamped
copy of the judgment sent by the clerk did neither.
Unless the motion for a new trial was timely, it did not extend the time to
appeal. Accordingly, we observed that the copy of the superior court clerk’s
mailed notice and the certificate of its mailing maintained in the court file would
permit “an appellate court” to “readily determine whether an appeal was timely.”
(Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 64-65.)
11



Having found that the notice sent by the clerk (§ 664.5, subd. (b)) was
insufficient to start the 15-day period in which to file a notice of intention to move
for a new trial, the Van Beurden court addressed whether any other event had
triggered the 15-day period. The court stated that unless notice consistent with its
reading of section 664.5 is given by the clerk, “the time for ruling on a motion for
a new trial will be shortened only if the party submitting the order or judgment for
entry serves notice of entry of judgment on all the parties, files the original notice
with the court, and files a proof of service” as provided in section 664.5,
subdivision (a)(2). (Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 65, italics added.) This
comment was made without reference to the facts in Van Beurden, because there
the prevailing party had made no attempt to give notice of entry of judgment to the
party filing a notice of intention to move for a new trial.
As discussed below, the Courts of Appeal have sought, with difficulty, to
reconcile that comment in Van Beurden with the statutory language of the posttrial
motion statutes and with the pre-Van Beurden cases, which required neither a
separate document entitled “notice of entry of judgment” nor a filing of that
document in the trial court along with a proof of service.

D.
Court of Appeal Decisions After Van Beurden
In
People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Cherry Highland Properties
(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 257 (Cherry Highland), the Court of Appeal addressed the
question of what event would trigger section 660’s 60-day period in which a trial
court must rule on a motion for a new trial. The action was a condemnation in
which the state prevailed; the property owner, however, objected to the proposed
judgment and submitted its own judgment. When the court signed the property
owner’s judgment, the property owner on July 8, 1998, mailed to the state a notice
of the entry of judgment. On July 20, the property owner filed in the trial court a
notice of its intention to move for a new trial, and it filed proof of service of the
12



notice of entry it had mailed on July 8. (Cherry Highland, at p. 261.) The Court
of Appeal sought to reconcile section 664.5, which controls notice of entry of
judgment, with section 660, which defines the jurisdictional time limit for ruling
on a new trial motion.
Section 660 provides: “[T]he power of the court to rule on a motion for a
new trial shall expire 60 days from and after the mailing of notice of entry of
judgment by the clerk . . . or 60 days from and after service on the moving party
by any party of written notice of the entry of judgment,” or if such notice is not
given, “then 60 days after filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new
trial.” The Court of Appeal in Cherry Highland concluded that under the express
language of section 660 the operative act was service of notice on the moving
party. The court reasoned that because the property owner was the moving party,
it could not serve itself, and therefore the “time within which to rule on the new
trial motion . . . did not begin until” the property owner on July 20, 1998, filed its
notice of intention to move for a new trial. (Cherry Highland, supra, 76
Cal.App.3d at p. 263.)
Alternatively, the Court of Appeal in Cherry Highland rested its holding on
the statement in Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at page 65, that the time for ruling
on a motion for a new trial “ ‘will be shortened only if the party submitting the
order or judgment for entry [under section 664.5] serves notice of entry of
judgment on all the parties, files the original notice with the court, and files a
proof of service.’ ” (Cherry Highland, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 261.)
Applying that language, the Court of Appeal concluded that the jurisdictional 60-
day period for the trial court to rule on the property owner’s new trial motion
began only on July 20, 1998, when the owner filed proof of serving notice of entry
of judgment. (Ibid.)
13

The next year, in Dodge v. Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 513
(Dodge), a different division of the same Court of Appeal that had decided Cherry
Highland addressed section 660 but reached a different result. On February 11,
1999, after the jury in Dodge returned a verdict for the plaintiff, he personally
served defense counsel with conformed copies of the judgment. On February 19,
the defendants moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict. The court did not enter its minute order granting a new trial, however,
until the 61st day after service of the judgment. The plaintiff moved to strike the
order because it was made beyond section 660’s 60-day period. The trial court
denied the motion. Citing Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th 51, the court concluded
that the plaintiff had failed to comply with section 664.5 because he had served on
the defendants merely a conformed copy of the judgment rather than a document
entitled notice of entry of judgment, plus the filing in the trial court of such notice
and proof of its service. Accordingly, the trial court ruled that the 60 days did not
begin to run until the defendants filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found section 664.5 irrelevant because
notice of entry of judgment was not mailed, as contemplated by that section, either
by the plaintiff or the court clerk, but instead was personally served on the
opposing party. After examining the language of section 660, the court concluded
that “[t]he triggering event” under section 660 is “ ‘service on the moving party,’
not filing the proof of service.” (Dodge, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 520.) It
explained: “The language is perhaps tacit admission of the fact that parties often
file proof of service at a later date, particularly where as here they use a registered
process server and may not have immediate access to the proof of service.” (Id. at
p. 522.)
In the context of the cases discussed above, the Court of Appeal here
concluded that “Palmer’s service of a file-stamped copy of the judgment was
14

written notice of entry of judgment under sections 659 and 660” sufficient to start
the requisite time limits for moving for a new trial or for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and for ruling on those motions. In the Court of
Appeal’s view, the operative act under sections 659 and 660 was service, and
therefore it was “immaterial” whether service is personal or by mail.
III
Like the Court of Appeal here, we conclude that under the express terms of
sections 629, 659, and 660, the time limits for bringing and ruling on motions for a
new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict start to run either on the
date of the court clerk’s mailing or on the date of service on the moving party of
notice of entry of judgment. To be service “pursuant to Section 664.5” (§§ 659,
660) the notice of entry of judgment mailed by the clerk must “affirmatively state”
it is given “ ‘upon order by the court’ or ‘under section 664.5’ ” (Van Beurden,
supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 64). Otherwise, the time limits for motions for a new trial
or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (§ 629) are triggered by service on the
moving party of “written notice” of the “entry of judgment.” (§§ 659, 660.)
When the moving party is served by mail, service is complete at the time the
notice of entry of judgment is deposited in the mailbox. (§ 1013, subd. (a);
Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, Inc.
(2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1048.)
The written notice of entry of judgment served on the party who moves for
a new trial need not, for the purposes of these sections, be a separate document
entitled notice of entry of judgment. We have long held that no particular form of
notice is required, and that in counties that do not maintain a judgment book a file-
stamped copy of the judgment suffices as “written notice” for these sections. (Van
Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 57, fn. 2; McCordic v. Crawford (1943) 23 Cal.2d
1, 5 [“Section 660 . . . does not in fact prescribe any set form of notice.”].)
15

Finally, nothing in sections 629, 659, or 660 expressly requires the party
serving written notice of entry of judgment to file any document with the trial
court. When this court in Van Beurden, supra, 15 Cal.4th at page 65, said that
“the time for ruling on a motion for a new trial will be shortened only if the party
submitting the order or judgment for entry serves notice of entry of judgment on
all the parties, files the original notice with the court, and files a proof of service,”
(italics added) it overstated the statutory requirements. If a prevailing party,
consistent with section 664.5, serves written notice of the entry of judgment on the
party moving for new trial and files the original notice of entry and a proof of
service, the prevailing party necessarily will have complied with sections 659 and
660 by “serving written notice” on a party that intends to move for a new trial.
The posttrial motion statutes do not, however, require filing of the original notice
of entry (or of a file-stamped copy of the judgment) accompanied by proof of
service in order to start the time limits for bringing and determining the posttrial
motions. Van Beurden’s suggestion that more is required by a party to trigger the
time limits for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is dictum
because it was unnecessary to its holding.5 “ ‘Language used in any opinion is of
course to be understood in the light of the facts and the issue then before the court,
and an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered.’ ” (People
v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 17, quoting Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520,
524, fn. 2.)

5
We disapprove Cherry Highland Properties, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at
pages 261-263, to the extent it suggests that service by any party of written notice
of entry of judgment, sufficient to trigger the deadlines of sections 659 and 660 for
posttrial motions, is not accomplished until a notice of entry of judgment
accompanied by proof of its service has been filed with the trial court.
16



GTE contends that because section 664.5 speaks of a separate document
entitled notice of entry of judgment, such a document is likewise required for
notice of entry of judgment sufficient to start the deadlines for motions for a new
trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In support, GTE cites to rule
2(a) of the Rules of Court, governing the time limits for filing an appeal. In 1999,
the year of the events at issue here, rule 2(a) provided that “a notice of appeal from
a judgment shall be filed on or before” 60 days after the clerk mails notice of entry
of judgment or “60 days after the date of service of a document entitled ‘notice of
entry’ of judgment” by or on the party filing the notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of
Court, former rule 2(a).) At most this provision confirms our view that the
requirements of section 665.4 (party submitting a judgment for entry must prepare
and serve notice of entry document, and file it with proof of service) exceed those
of sections 659 and 660 (moving party must be served with written notice of entry
of judgment). Moreover, the current version of rule 2(a), which took effect on
January 1, 2002, provides that a notice of appeal must be filed “60 days after the
party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document
entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment,
accompanied by proof of service.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(a)(2), italics
added.) New rule 2(a) thus expressly permits service with either a file-stamped
copy of judgment or a separate pleading entitled Notice of Entry. (See also Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 122(a) [In appeals to the appellate division of superior court,
“a file-stamped copy of the judgment or appealable order may be used in place of
the document entitled ‘notice of entry.’ ”].)
GTE urges us to read into sections 659 and 660 a requirement that the
original notice of entry of judgment or a file-stamped copy be filed in the trial
court. GTE argues that “[a]llowing a party to forgo” filing the original notice of
entry of judgment or a file-stamped copy “permits the commencement of the
17

jurisdictional timeframe on a date no one can verify” except counsel for the party
serving the notice “when he or she digs a proof of service” out of the file. GTE
contends that unless the party serving written notice is required to file the served
document, the trial court, which has only 60 days from the date of service to rule
on the motions, may have nothing in its file indicating the crucial date of service.
But it is not enough to argue that imposing a requirement would be a useful
addition to the statutory scheme. In construing sections 659 and 660, our task is to
“ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to
insert what has been omitted . . . .” (§ 1858.) Sections 659 and 660 simply do not
require that a party giving notice of entry file either a proof of service or a copy of
the served document, and we may not insert additional unwritten requirements into
those sections, no matter how beneficial we might think them to be.6
To some degree, the existing statutory scheme relies for its proper
functioning on the prudence and courtesy of counsel for the parties.7 Counsel who
6
If a valid motion for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
is denied, the party that serves notice of that order must accompany the order or
the notice with proof of service of that document on the opposing party. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3(f).) Because the notice or the order extends the time to
appeal, this “proof of service establishes the date when an extension of the time to
appeal begins to run.” (Advisory Com. com., West’s Ann. Codes, Rules (2003
supp.) foll. rule 3, p. 21.) The service and filing requirement in rule 3(a)(1), (c)(1)
& (f), which extends the time to appeal, thus parallels that in rule 2(a)(1) & (2),
which governs the normal time to appeal.
7
At oral argument, counsel for GTE expressed concern that, unless required
to serve a separate document entitled “Notice of Entry of Judgment,” an attorney
might bury such notice in a “chatty ten-page letter.” Of course, any deliberate
attempt to deceive or mislead opposing counsel would be a serious breach of
counsel’s professional responsibilities and grounds for discipline. More to the
point, our decision today makes it perfectly clear that any attorney who receives in
the mail a file-stamped copy of a judgment, accompanied by proof of service,

(Fn. continued on next page)
18



has served notice of entry of judgment should thereafter promptly file a copy of
the served document together with a proof of service. Although not statutorily
required, the act of filing those documents ensures that the date on which the
notice of entry was served, thereby triggering the statutory periods for making and
determining posttrial motions, appears of record in the superior court file. And, as
the Court of Appeal here pointed out, counsel for a party making a posttrial
motion for a new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should,
although not statutorily required to do so, inform the trial court of (1) the date on
which entry of judgment was served, and (2) the date on which the court’s
jurisdiction to rule on the motions will expire. Providing this information will
assist the trial court in timely fulfilling its responsibilities in ruling on posttrial
motions.

(Fn. continued from previous page)

will understand that this constitutes service of notice of entry of judgment
sufficient to trigger the deadlines for posttrial motions.
19



DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
KENNARD,
J.
WE CONCUR:

GEORGE, C. J.
BAXTER, J.
CHIN, J.
BROWN, J.
MORENO, J.
RICHLI, J.*

*
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,
Division Two, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
20



See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion Palmer v. GTE California
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

XXX NP opn. filed 1/30/02 - 2d Dist., Div. 3
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted

Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S104997
Date Filed: June 26, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Los Angeles
Judge: John P. Farrell

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Sullivan, Sottile & Taketa, Mark Sullivan, Timothy B. Sottile, Donn S. Taketa; Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker, Paul Grossman, George W. Abele and Heather A. Morgan for Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Law Offices of Kerry R. Tepper, Kerry R. Tepper; Law Offices of Louis E. Goebel and Louis E. Goebel
for Plaintiff and Appellant.


1



Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Paul Grossman
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
555 South Flower Street, Twenty-Third Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 683-6000

Louis E. Goebel
Law Offices of Louis E. Goebel
2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 410
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 239-2611

2


Opinion Information
Date:Docket Number:
Thu, 06/26/2003S104997

Parties
1Gte California, Inc. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by George W. Abele
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky
515 S. Flower Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA

2Gte California, Inc. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Paul Grossman
Paul Hastings Janofsky Walker, LLP
515 S Flower Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA

3Gte California, Inc. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Heather Ann Morgan
Paul Hastings et al
515 S Flower Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA

4Gte California, Inc. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Timothy Bruce Sottile
Sullivan, Sottile & Taketa
31351 Via Colinas, Suite 205
Westlake Village, CA

5Gte California, Inc. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Mark F. Sullivan
Sullivan, Sottile & Taketa
31351 Via Colinas, Suite 205
Westlake Village, CA

6Gte California, Inc. (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Donn S. Taketa
Sullivan, Sottile & Taketa
31351 Via Colinas, Suite 205
Westlake Village, CA

7Palmer, Debbie (Plaintiff and Appellant)
Represented by Louis E. Goebel
Law Offices of Louis E. Goebel
2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 410
San Diego, CA

8Palmer, Debbie (Plaintiff and Appellant)
Represented by Kerry Randall Tepper
Attorney at Law
5900 Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 215
Van Nuys, CA


Disposition
Jun 26 2003Opinion: Affirmed

Dockets
Mar 8 2002Petition for review filed
  appellant GTE California Incorporated
Mar 12 2002Received Court of Appeal record
  1 doghouse
Mar 28 2002Answer to petition for review filed
  in San Diego by counsel for Debbie Palmer [Plaintiff/Appellant]
Apr 29 2002Time extended to grant or deny review
  to and including June 6, 2002.
May 15 2002Petition for Review Granted (civil case)
  Baxter, J., was absent and did not participate. Votes: George, CJ., Kennard, Werdegar, Chin, Brown and Moreno, JJ.
May 17 2002Received Court of Appeal record
  3 doghouses [balance of record]
May 21 2002Change of Address filed for:
  counsel Louis E. Goebel for appellant (Debbie Palmer). Change made to party screen.
May 30 2002Certification of interested entities or persons filed
  appellant GTE California Incorporated
May 30 2002Certification of interested entities or persons filed
  by counsel for appellant Debbie Palmer.
Jun 14 2002Opening brief on the merits filed
  appellant GTE California, Inc.
Jul 10 2002Request for extension of time filed
  by counsel for appellant Debbie Palmer asking to Sept. 12, 2002 to file answer brief on the merits.
Jul 12 2002Extension of time granted
  to and including Sept. 12, 2002 for appellant Debbie Palmer to file answer brief on the merits.
Jul 17 2002Change of Address filed for:
  counsel for appellant GTE California, Inc. [Paul, Hastings]
Sep 12 2002Answer brief on the merits filed
  by counsel for appellant (D. Palmer)
Oct 2 2002Received:
  in LA from appellant GTE - application to file oversize reply brief on the merits.
Oct 4 2002Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
  by counsel for appellant GTE California Incorporated. (filed with permission)
Apr 9 2003Case ordered on calendar
  5-7-03, 1:30pm. S.F.
Apr 16 2003Issues ordered limited
  Is service of a filed-stamped copy of the judgement on a party that intends to move for a new trial sufficient to trigger the jurisdictional time frames of Code of Civil Procedure sections 659 and 660 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29 (a)). Werdegar, J., was recused and did not participate.
Apr 21 2003Note: Mail returned (unable to forward)
  oral argument notice which was mailed to atty. Kerry Tepper. Postal serv. stamp indicates "Not Known"
May 7 2003Cause argued and submitted
 
Jun 26 2003Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full
  Mafority Opinion by Kennard, J. joined by George C.J., Baxter, Chin, Brown, Moreno & Richli, JJ. (Hon. Richli, AJ - CA4/2)
Jul 30 2003Remittitur issued (civil case)
  CA2/3
Aug 5 2003Received document entitled:
  Receipt for remittitur from CA2/3.

Briefs
Jun 14 2002Opening brief on the merits filed
 
Sep 12 2002Answer brief on the merits filed
 
Oct 4 2002Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
 
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website