A recent court filing highlights a complex legal battle involving a defamation case and the intricacies of jurisdictional time limits for filing post-trial motions. On July 8, 2024, Lee K. Nguyen and other plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District against Tim Do and other defendants, following a contentious trial and subsequent judgment.
The case began when plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation. The jury found defendant Tim Do not liable but held defendant Chau Truong and his publishing entity, Hai Van News & Services, responsible for $1,001,000 in damages. Following the verdict on March 30, 2022, Truong informed the court that he was moving to Florida and would no longer be publishing Hai Van News. Despite this notification via email on April 6, 2022, Truong did not provide a new mailing address to the court or parties involved.
Judgment was filed on April 8, 2022. Subsequently, on April 11, 2022, the court clerk served notice of entry of judgment by mail to counsel for both plaintiffs and defendant Do but failed to serve Truong due to his lack of updated contact information. Plaintiffs then served their own notice of entry of judgment by mail on April 18, 2022.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial on April 28, 2022—17 days after receiving notice from the court clerk—exceeding the statutory limit by two days. Consequently, the trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion due to its untimeliness.
In their appeal, plaintiffs argued that since Truong was not served with notice of entry of judgment by the clerk as required under section 664.5(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), service was invalid for all parties involved. They contended that this failure should extend their deadline to file a motion for a new trial to within 180 days after entry of judgment.
However, the appellate court disagreed with this interpretation. The judges noted that while section 664.5(d) does mandate service on all parties when ordered by the court, Truong's failure to provide an updated address effectively forfeited his right to receive such notice. The appellate court emphasized that proper service was made on plaintiffs in compliance with statutory requirements governing mailed service (§§1012 and §1013 CCP). Therefore, they concluded that plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was indeed untimely.
The appellate decision affirmed the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' motion for a new trial due to jurisdictional constraints tied directly to timely service compliance as stipulated under California law.
The attorneys representing both sides were unnamed in this document; however, Judge Hull authored the opinion with Presiding Justice Earl and Justice Wiseman concurring under Case ID C096408.