Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. L.A.S.C. No. BC290553, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge.
Reed Smith LLP, Margaret M. Grignon and Judith E. Posner; Krane & Smith, Samuel Krane for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Steven L. Mayer, Shaudy Danaye-Elmi and Sara J. Eisenberg for Real Parties in Interest.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
We hold that judgment should have been entered, because the case is not reserved for argument or further consideration.
FACTS
Only a brief recital of the facts is necessary.
A jury trial on one cause of action in the complaint filed by Shashikant Jogani resulted in judgments for Jogani: against J.K. Properties in the amount of $32,809,000; against H.K. Realty, Inc., in the amount of $23,623,000; against Hansa Investments, Inc., in the amount of $3,281,000; and against Commonwealth Investments, Inc., in the amount of $5,905,000. The special verdict forms were signed by the presiding juror on November 20, 2009.
The jury determined that the remaining defendants (Haresh Jogani, Mooreport Holdings Limited, and Gilu Investments Limited) were not liable to Jogani. On November 30, the defendants Defendants J.K. Properties, H.K. Realty, Hansa Investments, and Commonwealth Investments (hereinafter sometimes “defendants”) moved ex parte to delay entry of judgment pending their motion for a new trial. Respondent court granted the ex parte request the same day.
Defendants J.K. Properties, H.K. Realty, Hansa Investments, and Commonwealth Investments moved for a new trial and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, contending, inter alia, that the jury engaged in misconduct.
On February 19, 2010, in a 15-page order, respondent court denied the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but granted the defendants’ motion for a new trial and set a trial-setting conference for March 30.
Jogani filed a notice of appeal from the order granting a new trial, and defendants J.K. Properties, H.K. Realty, Hansa Investments, and Commonwealth Investments filed a notice of appeal from the order denying the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Jogani moved for an order to enter judgment against J.K. Properties, H.K. Realty, Hansa Investments, and Commonwealth Investments.
On March 30, respondent court refused to enter judgment. The within petition followed.
DISCUSSION
A trial court has the discretion to refrain from entering judgment if the case is “reserved for argument or further consideration”: “When trial by jury has been had, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the verdict within 24 hours after the rendition of the verdict, whether or not a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict be pending, unless the court order the case to be reserved for argument or further consideration, or grant a stay of proceedings. If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the decision of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.)
All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
We recognize that “[s]ection 664 is directory rather than mandatory [citations]....” (Cadlo v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1319.) But here there was no reason to refrain from entering judgment, because the case is not “reserved for argument or further consideration.” (See Spencer v. Nelson (1947) 30 Cal.2d 162, 164–165; Woods v. Rechenmacher (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 294, 296–297.)
As there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law, and in view of the fact that the issuance of an alternative writ would add nothing to the presentation already made, we deem this to be a proper case for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate “in the first instance.” (§ 1088; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1237–1238; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1240–1241.) Opposition was requested and the parties were notified of the court’s intention to issue a peremptory writ. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180.)
DISPOSITION
THEREFORE, let a peremptory writ issue, commanding respondent superior court to vacate its order refusing to direct entry of judgment and to issue a new and different order directing the clerk to enter judgment, in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BC290553.
All parties shall bear their own costs.
MALLANO, P. J. ROTHSCHILD, J. JOHNSON, J.