October 2015 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 250: Maroney's Minefield

 To access the article related to this test, please click here.
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


Test Sheet

Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. A motion for new trial is timely only if a notice of intention to move for new trial is filed prior to the entry of judgment.

2. Which of the following is not a statutory ground for new trial?

3. A notice of intention to move for new trial must be accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities.

4. A motion for new trial can raise factual issues outside the record of the court at trial.

5. An amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure permitting a moving party to file a reply brief became effective in:

6. When a court has not acted upon a motion within the relevant time period under Code of Civil Procedure Section 660:

7. Maroney v. Iacobsohn holds that a party’s time to serve a notice of intention to move for new trial runs from the time at which the moving party has actual notice of the entry of judgment.

8. The court’s authority to grant a new trial motion expires 30 days after the clerk’s mailing of the notice of entry of judgment.

9. To grant a motion for new trial, the court is required to enter an order specifying its reasons.

10. The court can direct a party to prepare a proposed order specifying the reasons why the court is granting a motion for new trial.

11. In Maroney v. Iacobsohn, the court of appeal held that the ultimate result of the trial court’s error in deciding it lacked jurisdiction was to render the motion denied by operation of law.

12. After a bench trial, a court that orders an amendment of its statement of reasons in response to a new trial motion has granted the motion.

13. California trial judges have broad discretion whether to order new trials.

14. In deciding a new trial motion, a California judge can disagree with the jury regarding the credibility of witnesses.

15. Maroney v. Iacobsohn affirmed the denial of a new trial motion because the plaintiff failed to make a record for reversal on appeal.

16. A dissenting Supreme Court justice once referred to new trial procedure in California as a procedural minefield.

17. The requirement that the court specify its reasons for a new trial is mandatory and jurisdictional.

18. Serving a copy of a judgment attached to a pleading is sufficient to constitute notice of entry of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.5(a).

19. California state courts are more willing than federal courts to entertain new trial motions that examine what occurred during the jury’s deliberations.

20. California courts have vacated new trial orders based on procedural mistakes by the trial judge that were outside the control of the moving party.

Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education legal ethics credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.