A motion for new trial requests “a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 656; Guzman v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 705, 707-708.)

“[T]he proceedings on a motion for new trial are strictly statutory, and the procedure for seeking relief must conform strictly to the statutory mandate.” (People v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 593, 601.)

In ruling on the merits of a motion for new trial, the Court begins with the basic premise of Article VI of the California Constitution. Section 13 of Article VI requires that “no judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (Cal. Constitution, § 13, Article VI; Maher v. Saad (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1324, fn. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 657.)

Motions for a new trial are governed by Code of Civil Procedures sections 656 and 657. According to section 657, “the verdict may be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party:

1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial.
2. Misconduct of the jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict, or to a finding on any question submitted to them by the court, by a resort to the determination of chance, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors.
3. Accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.
4. Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial.
5. Excessive or inadequate damages.
6. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or the verdict or other decision is against law.
7. Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 657; see also Montoya v. Barragan (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1229–1230; Gray v. Robinson (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 177, 182.)

While “the trial court has no inherent power to grant a new trial, it has wide discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial.” (City of L.A. v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 871-72.) There is “no standard or test to guide the trial judge.” (Perry v. Fowler (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 808, 811.) As such, “the court must exercise discriminating judgment within the bounds of reason.” (Johns v. City of L.A. (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 983, 987.)

“[T]he court’s exercise of discretion is accorded great deference on appeal. An abuse of discretion occurs if, in light of the applicable law and considering all of the relevant circumstances, the court’s decision exceeds the bounds of reason and results in a miscarriage of justice.” (Fassberg Const. Co. v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 720, 751-752.)

But granting “a new trial for harmless error violates the constitutional provision and wastes judicial time and resources to no purpose.” (Garcia v. County of L.A. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 633, 641.)

In considering a motion for new trial, the court is entitled to “reweigh evidence, consider the credibility of witnesses, and draw reasonable inferences contrary to those accepted by the jury.” (Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 112.) “If the judge is unsatisfied with the verdict or decision and the statutory grounds for granting a new trial exist, he or she has a duty to grant the motion.” (Pollitz v. Wickersham (1907) 150 Cal. 238, 244.)

However, “a new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) That is, the court is “vested with the authority... to disbelieve witnesses, reweigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences therefrom contrary to those of the trier of fact.” (Casella v. SouthWest Dealer Servs., Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1159-60, quoting Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 112.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 659, “the party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of his or her intention to move for a new trial, designating the grounds upon which the motion will be made and whether the same will be made upon affidavits or the minutes of the court, or both, either:

1. After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment.
2. Within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon him or her by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest; provided, that upon the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial by a party, each other party shall have 15 days after the service of that notice upon him or her to file and serve a notice of intention to move for a new trial.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 659; Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469; Palmer v. GTE California, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1265, 1267.)

Moreover, “the power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 75 days after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk or 75 days after service on the moving party of written notice of entry of judgment, whichever is earlier, or if that notice has not been given, 75 days after the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 660(c).)

These “time limits are jurisdictional and cannot be altered.” (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.)

Motions made under Code of Civil Procedure § 657(1), (2), (3) or (4) must be based on affidavits. Motions asserted under Code of Civil Procedure § 657, subsections (5), (6) and (7) must be made on the minutes of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 658.)