A large jury verdict against an employer isn’t always the final number. In California, the trial judge can grant a new trial on damages unless the employee agrees to accept a lower amount, a procedure called remittitur. The judge weighs the evidence independently and decides what is fair and reasonable. The deadlines are short and can’t be extended, so the employer’s post-trial team has to move within days of judgment. Done well, the motion can sharply reduce exposure before any appeal.
What is remittitur?
A conditional new trial order that gives the employee a choice. Code of Civil Procedure section 662.5(a)(2) lets the court, when “the ground for granting a new trial is excessive damages,” issue an order granting a new trial “unless the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered consents to the reduction of so much thereof as the court in its independent judgment determines from the evidence to be fair and reasonable.”
So the employee either accepts the reduced amount or faces a new trial on damages. Most accept. A retrial is expensive and uncertain, and the new jury might award even less.
On what grounds can an employer seek a new trial?
Several. Section 657 lists the causes, including “Irregularity in the proceedings,” “Misconduct of the jury,” “Excessive or inadequate damages,” “Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict,” and “Error in law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application.”
Excessive damages is the ground most tied to remittitur. In employment verdicts it usually targets emotional distress awards that dwarf the economic loss, or punitive damages out of proportion to the harm. The other grounds can support a full new trial on liability, which is a different and harder request.
What standard does the judge apply?
The judge acts as a thirteenth juror, but with a high bar. Section 657 provides that a new trial shall not be granted for excessive 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.”
That’s unlike most rulings, where the judge defers to the jury. Here the judge can weigh credibility and evidence directly. The motion should therefore read like a closing argument on damages, built on the trial record: what the employee earned, how quickly they found new work, what treatment they had, and how the employee’s lawyer framed the number for the jury.
| Step | Rule | Practical point |
|---|---|---|
| Notice of intention | CCP § 659 | 15 days after notice of entry of judgment; can’t be extended |
| Grounds | CCP § 657 | The order must specify grounds and reasons |
| Ruling deadline | CCP § 660(c) | 75 days, or the motion is denied by operation of law |
| Remittitur | CCP § 662.5 | The employee accepts the cut or retries damages |
How fast does the employer have to move?
Very fast. Under section 659(a), the notice of intention must be filed “Within 15 days of the date of serving notice of entry of judgment” by the clerk or a party, or within 180 days after entry, whichever is earliest. Subdivision (b) says those times “shall not be extended by order or stipulation.”
The court’s power is time-limited too. Section 660(c) gives the court 75 days, and “If the motion is not determined within the 75-day period, or within that period as extended, the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.” A motion that is well argued but not ruled on in time is simply lost.
What happens if the employee rejects the reduction?
A new trial on damages only. Section 662.5(b) sets a default of 30 days to respond, and failing to respond “shall be deemed a rejection” with a new damages trial “granted automatically.” Liability stays decided.
The remittitur motion usually travels with a JNOV motion, which attacks liability on the evidence, covered in the firm’s post on JNOV after an employment verdict. If the reduced judgment still stands, the next question is staying enforcement, covered in the post on appeal bonds for employment judgments.
What should an employer do right after a large verdict?
Treat the first two weeks as part of the trial.
- Keep every exhibit, the jury instructions, the verdict form, and juror contact information under the litigation hold, and order the daily transcripts if not already in hand.
- Calendar the 15-day notice of intention deadline from service of notice of entry of judgment, and notify the EPLI carrier of the verdict.
- Identify any juror conduct, attorney argument, or evidentiary ruling that could support a new trial on grounds beyond damages.
- Pull the economic evidence: pay records, the employee’s post-termination earnings, and the medical and treatment testimony.
- Talk to trial and appellate counsel together about remittitur, JNOV, the bond, and settlement before judgment becomes final.
Post-trial motion strategy is part of the firm’s California employment litigation defense for employers.
Remittitur questions employers ask
Can the employee appeal a remittitur?
It depends on what the employee does. If the employee rejects the reduction, the order granting a new trial can be reviewed on appeal, and section 657 says an order based on excessive damages is reversed on that ground “only if there is no substantial basis in the record for any of such reasons.” That deferential standard is why the court’s written reasons matter, and why the motion should give the judge a clear, record-based path to a lower number.
Does remittitur apply to punitive damages?
Yes. Punitive damages are part of the damages a court may find excessive. Defense counsel often argue both state law excessiveness and federal due process limits on the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. The two arguments overlap but aren’t identical, so the motion should make each separately and preserve both for appeal.
Should the employer settle while the motion is pending?
Often that’s the best moment. Both sides face real uncertainty: the employee may lose a large part of the award, and the employer faces a bond, interest, and appeal costs. A pending motion, especially after a tentative ruling, gives each side a reason to compromise. Any discussion should account for the employee’s likely fee claim, which keeps growing.
If your company is facing a large employment verdict
If a jury has returned a verdict against your company in a discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination case, the post-trial motions are usually the best chance to bring the number down before appeal. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving excessive jury awards. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are Code of Civil Procedure sections 657, 659, 660, and 662.5.
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.