“A trial court must render judgment notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted.” That’s how the California Supreme Court summarized Code of Civil Procedure section 629. For an employer that just lost a jury verdict, a JNOV motion asks the judge to enter judgment for the company because no substantial evidence supports what the jury found. It’s hard to win, and the deadlines are short and tied to the new trial motion.
What does section 629 allow?
A judgment for the losing party, despite the verdict. Code of Civil Procedure section 629(a) says the court “shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made.”
The test borrows the directed verdict standard. The question isn’t whether the judge agrees with the jury. It’s whether the evidence, viewed in the employee’s favor, could support the verdict at all.
How strict is the standard?
Very. In Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, the court said a JNOV motion “may be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence in support.”
That means the judge doesn’t reweigh credibility. If a witness testified to a fact that supports the verdict, the court generally accepts it for purposes of the motion. A JNOV works best on a missing element, where the record simply has nothing on a required point: no evidence the decision-maker knew of the protected activity, no evidence of an adverse action, or no evidence that a managing agent authorized or ratified conduct supporting punitive damages.
What are the deadlines?
They run with the new trial motion. Under section 629(b), a JNOV motion “shall be made within the period specified by Section 659 for the filing and service of a notice of intention to move for a new trial.” The briefing follows section 659a, and the hearing is set like a new trial hearing under section 660.
The court’s power to rule also expires on the new trial clock. Section 629(b) provides that if the motion “is not determined before that date, the effect shall be a denial of that motion without further order of the court.” The underlying new trial deadline is short. Under section 659(a)(2), the notice of intention is due “Within 15 days of the date of serving notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon them by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest.” Subdivision (b) adds that those times “shall not be extended by order or stipulation.” So the post-trial calendar should be built the day the verdict comes in.
| Post-trial motion | Statute | What it asks | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment notwithstanding the verdict | CCP § 629 | Judgment for the employer | No substantial evidence supports the verdict |
| Directed verdict (during trial) | CCP § 630 | Verdict for the employer before deliberations | Same legal-sufficiency question |
| New trial | CCP § 657 | A new trial on some or all issues | Grounds listed in § 657, including excessive damages and insufficient evidence |
Should an employer file JNOV and a new trial motion together?
Usually, yes. The two motions do different jobs. JNOV ends the case for the employer. A new trial motion asks for a do-over, and on some grounds the judge can weigh the evidence in a way JNOV doesn’t allow. Section 629(b) says that if both are filed, “the court shall rule upon both motions at the same time.”
Filing both also protects the appeal. Under section 629(d), if the court grants both motions, “the order granting the new trial shall be effective only if, on appeal, the judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed.” And under subdivision (c), if both motions are denied, the appellate court “shall, if it appears that the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted, order judgment to be so entered.”
Does it matter whether a nonsuit or directed verdict was requested earlier?
It helps, though the statute doesn’t require it. Section 629 asks whether a directed verdict “should have been granted had a previous motion been made,” so a prior motion isn’t a condition. Still, an employer that raised the same sufficiency points in a nonsuit motion when the employee rested and in a directed verdict motion at the close of evidence presents a consistent record. The firm’s post on nonsuit motions in employment trials explains the earlier motions.
The safer course is to treat all three motions as one argument made three times, each on a fuller record.
What should an employer do in the days after a verdict?
The first two weeks after a verdict decide which post-trial options stay open.
- Keep every trial record, exhibit, and juror-related document under the litigation hold, and order the reporter’s transcript right away.
- Calendar the 15-day deadline for the notice of intention to move for a new trial and the JNOV motion, counted from the earliest service of notice of entry of judgment, and notify the EPLI carrier of the verdict.
- Identify the elements where the record is thinnest, using the jury instructions and the special verdict form as the checklist.
- Pull the trial exhibits and testimony on each of those elements, and the punitive damages evidence if any was awarded.
- Talk to appellate and trial counsel together before deciding on post-trial motions, an appeal, a bond, or settlement.
Post-trial strategy is covered on the firm’s page about defense counsel for California employers.
JNOV questions employers ask
Can a JNOV reduce the damages instead of eliminating them?
Not by itself. JNOV enters judgment on a claim or issue, so it can wipe out a category of recovery that has no evidentiary support, such as a punitive damages award without managing-agent proof. Reducing an amount the evidence partly supports is the job of a new trial motion on “Excessive or inadequate damages,” one of the grounds listed in section 657, where the court can offer a remittitur. Many employers file both motions for that reason.
What happens if the judge never rules?
The motion is denied by operation of law. Section 629(b) says that if the motion “is not determined before that date,” meaning the last day the court can rule on a new trial motion, the effect is a denial “without further order of the court” under the statute. The appeal clock may then be running, so counsel should track the court’s deadline as carefully as the filing deadline.
Is a JNOV denial appealable on its own?
Yes. As the Supreme Court noted in Sweatman, Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(4), makes an order denying JNOV appealable, and the employer may appeal from that order, the judgment, or both. The appellate court uses the same substantial evidence test, as the Supreme Court explained in Sweatman, so a weak motion in the trial court rarely becomes a strong appeal.
If a jury has returned a verdict against your company
If your company has lost a discrimination, retaliation, or wage verdict, the post-trial deadlines and the gaps in the employee’s proof usually decide whether JNOV is worth filing. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving post-trial motions after an employment verdict. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are Code of Civil Procedure sections 629 , 630, 657, and 659. The standard is from Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.