As a first-year litigation associate, I have learned that litigation rarely unfolds exactly as expected. In my first case to go to trial as a lawyer, a jury returned a disappointing verdict. After months of preparation, countless late nights, fruitless settlement conferences, and nearly three weeks of trial, everything had built toward one moment: the reading of the verdict. For most trial teams, that moment marks the end of the litigation battle. But when the jury announced its award in this case, I began some of the most demanding and meaningful work I have done as a first-year associate.

Read on to learn more about what can happen after the verdict, and how a motion for new trial turned an inadequate award into a $1 million additur.

The Case

Our client was a passenger in a paratransit vehicle when the driver ran a red light and caused a collision. Liability was uncontested. The damages evidence was substantial, documenting years of physical injuries, treatment, surgeries, and pain that had affected nearly every aspect of our client’s daily life. We believed the evidence supported a verdict in the millions, despite the fact that the client had significant prior injuries and the fact that she kept pushing herself in activities many could not do after the accident.

Unfortunately, the jury didn’t see it our way and awarded mid six figures.

By one measure, that was a win. The verdict was 150% higher than the defendants’ highest settlement offer. But the amount did not reflect what we believe our client had endured over the preceding years, what she would continue to endure, or the evidence we had presented at trial. After taking a few days to step back and assess the verdict, my team reached a firm conclusion: this verdict should not stand, and we would ask the court to correct it.

Knowing the Odds

Motions for new trial after a verdict are difficult to win, and additurs are uncommon. The legal standards reflect the deference courts owe to juries and the importance of finality in litigation.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 657, a court may grant a new trial for inadequate damages when, after weighing the evidence, it concludes that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict. An additur provides an alternative to retrying damages. Under section 662.5, the court may conditionally grant a new trial on damages unless the defendant consents to an increase in the award that the court finds fair and reasonable.

Neither remedy is automatic, even when a party believes the verdict is plainly inadequate. The court must evaluate the evidence and apply the governing legal standards, not simply substitute its preferred number for the jury’s.

We understood the standard and the risks. We also understood that the difficulty of obtaining relief did not diminish the strength of the record or our client’s interest in having it fairly evaluated. The question was whether the evidence, viewed as a whole, justified asking the court to intervene. We believed it did.

Building the Motion

California’s posttrial deadlines leave little room for hesitation. Generally, a notice of intention to move for a new trial must be filed within 15 days after service of notice of entry of judgment or service of written notice of the entry of judgment, subject to the statutory rules. (Code Civ. Proc., § 659.) The supporting memorandum and affidavits or declarations are generally due within 10 days after filing the notice of intention. The court’s power to rule on the motion generally expires 75 days after the clerk mails notice of entry of judgment or a party serves written notice of entry of judgment, subject to section 660’s specific provisions. An undecided motion is denied by operation of law when the court’s jurisdiction to rule expires.

In practical terms, we had to evaluate the verdict, consult with the client and our team, identify viable grounds for relief, research the governing law, assemble the supporting evidence, and prepare the motion within a matter of days. The task was not simply to argue that the award was too low. We needed to demonstrate why the record warranted judicial intervention.

The foundation of our inadequate-damages argument was the trial record. A motion for new trial on this ground asks the judge to independently weigh the evidence, effectively acting as a thirteenth juror. A conclusion that the verdict was disappointing would not suffice. We needed to show the court precisely where the award fell short of the evidence presented.

That meant revisiting the trial transcripts and identifying the testimony and exhibits that best demonstrated the extent of our client’s injuries, the treatment and surgeries she had undergone, and the continuing effects of her pain. We organized the evidence to give the court a clear picture of our client’s experience and to demonstrate the disconnect between that evidence and the jury’s award. Each argument needed to be grounded in what the jury had actually heard, not simply in our assessment of what the case was worth.

We also pursued a separate ground for a new trial: irregularity in the proceedings and accident or surprise under section 657, subdivisions (1) and (3). During trial, defense counsel displayed evidence before the jury that had never been produced, contrary to the parties’ agreement concerning one of our motions in limine. We objected, and the court struck the evidence. But striking evidence does not necessarily eliminate its effect on a jury.

This argument required a different kind of preparation. Under section 658, a motion based on these grounds must be supported by affidavits or declarations rather than relying on the trial record alone. We therefore had to establish what had occurred, when it happened, how the conduct violated the parties’ agreement, and why the court’s ruling did not fully cure the resulting prejudice.

Finally, we asked the court, in the alternative, to condition a new trial on a $2 million additur. That request needed to be tied to the evidence rather than presented as an aspirational figure. We grounded the requested amount in the damages proof developed at trial and explained why an increased award was warranted.

Taken together, these arguments gave the court multiple grounds to consider. The inadequate-damages argument addressed the relationship between the verdict and the evidence. The procedural argument addressed an incident that may have affected the fairness of the trial. The alternative additur request offered a potential resolution short of another trial on damages.

The Result

The court agreed that the damages verdict could not stand. It conditionally granted a new trial on damages unless the defendant accepted a $1 million additur. That was less than we requested, but it was a ruling that cleared one of the highest bars in civil litigation: a judge, after independently weighing the entire record, concluded that the jury clearly should have reached a different result.

For our client, the ruling offered a meaningful opportunity to obtain compensation more consistent with the evidence of her injuries and their lasting effects. For our team, it reinforced the importance of evaluating a verdict carefully rather than assuming that the conclusion of trial necessarily ends the work.

A Verdict Is Not Always the End

Our clients come to us at some of the hardest moments of their lives. They trust us to advocate for them not only when the case is going well, but also when the outcome falls short of what they believe is fair. Sometimes advocacy means not giving up, even after the verdict has been announced.

Not every posttrial motion will succeed. The standards are demanding, and a disappointing verdict alone is not enough. But when the record and the law support further relief, the difficulty of obtaining it is not, by itself, a reason to walk away.

This case taught me that advocacy does not stop when the jury leaves the courtroom. Trial preparation and presentation matter, but so does the willingness to scrutinize the result, return to the evidence, and make a focused argument for a different outcome. The verdict was a significant moment in the case, but it was not the last one. What followed gave us another opportunity to advocate for our client, resulting in a $1 million increase in the damages award for our client.

To learn more about this case and how a motion for new trial turned an inadequate reward into a $1 million additur, schedule your consultation with our team at Altair Law today.