Case Name: HGST, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara
Case No.: 2014-1-CV-263300

Plaintiff, HGST, Inc. (HGST) brings this Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Different Judgment, under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 and 663a.

The motion is DENIED, without prejudice, as it is premature. As no Judgment has yet been entered, the time limits for filing a motion challenging a judgment – either a motion to vacate or a motion for new trial – have not been triggered and have not commenced.

Following trial before the Court, and post-trial briefing with proposed Statements of Decision on a schedule ordered by the Court, the case was deemed submitted to the Court for decision on January 15, 2016. The Court’s Statement of Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision was signed by the Court on April 11, and filed and served by mail on April 13, 2016. The Court’s Proposed Statement of Decision states it shall become the Statement of Decision and Judgment of the Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §632 and California Rule of Court 3.1590, subject to timely request or objection by either party in compliance with the law.
Neither party filed objections to the Court’s Proposed Statement of Decision under California Rule of Court (CRC) 3.1590(g). However, Plaintiff filed its Objection to [Proposed] Judgment on May 12, 2016 – under CRC 3.1590(j). Plaintiff subsequently filed the Motion to Vacate presently before the Court, on May 31, 2016.

Both of Plaintiff’s recent filings maintain the Court’s Statement of Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision was not properly served on Plaintiff. The Court’s file contains a returned copy of this filing by the Court, stamped by the U.S. Postal Service as “Return to Sender Unable to Forward.” Although the clerk’s proof of service appears to reflect the correct street address, the omission of the law firm name and floor/suite number apparently caused the post office to fail or refuse to deliver the filing.

The Court has not yet issued a Judgment, nor has the Court served a Notice of Entry of Judgment. No Notice of Entry of Judgment has been filed. Plaintiff’s motion states a Notice of Entry of Judgment was served by Defendant, but this would have no legal effect in the absence of a duly entered Judgment.

Having denied Plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice, as premature, the Court rules as follows.

Under CRC 3.1590(m), the Court finds good cause to excuse Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the time limits prescribed for doing any act required by this rule. As Plaintiff expressly acknowledges receipt from Defendant’s counsel of the Statement of Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision, no further service is necessary. The Court orders that Plaintiff’s time to file objections under CRC 3.1590(g) shall begin on the date set for hearing on Plaintiff’s motion – July 14, 2016 – and any such objections shall be filed and served on or before July 29, 2016. The time contemplated for entering Judgment under CRC 3.1590(l) shall likewise be extended, and shall also commence as of the date set for hearing on Plaintiff’s motion – July 14, 2016.