Washington CR 59: 10 days to move, 30 days to be heard, and nine grounds ending in "substantial justice"

Most systems split these motions across separate rules or leave reconsideration to case law. Washington puts new trial, reconsideration and amendment of judgments in a single rule, on a single clock — and attaches a noting requirement that is a filing step, not a courtesy.

Ten days, and note it when you file

CR 59(b):

A motion for a new trial or for reconsideration shall be filed not later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment, order, or other decision. The motion shall be noted at the time it is filed, to be heard or otherwise considered within 30 days after the entry of the judgment, order, or other decision, unless the court directs otherwise. A motion for a new trial or for reconsideration shall identify the specific reasons in fact and law as to each ground on which the motion is based.

Three obligations in one subsection:

1. File within 10 days of entry. Not of notice of entry — of entry.
2. Note it when you file it, for a hearing inside 30 days of entry. A motion filed on day 10 has 20 days of hearing window left, and the noting has to happen the same day.
3. State specific reasons in fact and law for each ground. A motion that recites CR 59(a)(9) and then re-argues the case does not meet that requirement on its face.

CR 59(h) puts a motion to alter or amend the judgment on the same 10-day clock.

Compare California, which splits the two: 10 days after service of written notice of entry for reconsideration under CCP 1008, and a separate 15-day track for a new trial under CCP 659, each with its own requirements. Washington runs one 10-day clock from entry for everything in CR 59.

The nine grounds

CR 59(a) allows a verdict to be vacated and a new trial granted, or any other decision or order vacated and reconsideration granted, "for any one of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of such parties":

(1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which such party was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) Misconduct of prevailing party or jury; and whenever any one or more of the jurors shall have been induced to assent to any general or special verdict or to a finding on any question or questions submitted to the jury by the court, other and different from the juror's own conclusions, and arrived at by a resort to the determination of chance or lot, such misconduct may be proved by the affidavits of one or more of the jurors; (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (4) Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which the party could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial; (5) Damages so excessive or inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the verdict must have been the result of passion or prejudice; (6) Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract or for the injury or detention of property; (7) That there is no evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to justify the verdict or the decision, or that it is contrary to law; (8) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to at the time by the party making the application; (9) That substantial justice has not been done.

The threshold phrase governs all nine — the cause must materially affect substantial rights.

Two of these repay attention. Ground (2) is one of the few places in any set of civil rules that expressly authorises juror affidavits, and only for the narrow case of a chance or lot verdict. Ground (8) requires a contemporaneous objection: an error in law not objected to at the time is not a ground under (8), whatever else it may be.

And ground (9) — "that substantial justice has not been done" — is a genuine catch-all. Washington's relief-from-judgment rule, CR 60(b), also has an eleven-ground list; Oregon's ORCP 71 B, by contrast, has no residual ground at all.

Affidavits

CR 59(c):

When a motion for new trial is based on affidavits, they shall be filed with the motion. The opposing party has 10 days after service to file opposing affidavits, but that period may be extended for up to 20 days, either by the court for good cause or by the parties' written stipulation. The court may permit reply affidavits.

Your supporting affidavits are due with the motion — there is no supplementing later as of right. The opposition gets 10 days, extendable to 20, which can run past the 30-day hearing window in CR 59(b) and is one reason the court's power to direct otherwise gets used.

The court can act on its own

CR 59(d): not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, the court on its own initiative may order a hearing on its proposed order for a new trial for any reason for which it might have granted a new trial on a party's motion. After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may also grant a timely motion for a reason not stated in the motion.

When it does either, "the court shall specify the grounds in its order."

How the hearing gets shaped

CR 59(e) lets the judge who will hear the motion determine, on the judge's own motion or on application:

• Time of hearing — whether the motion is heard before entry of judgment;
• Consolidation — whether it is heard before or at the same time as the presentation of findings and conclusions or the judgment, and any other pending motion;
• Nature of hearing — oral argument or briefs, and if briefs, the schedule for them.

The first of those is worth noticing: CR 59 motions can be heard before judgment is entered, which is why CR 59(j) exists.

If a new trial is granted, the order must explain itself

CR 59(f): in all cases where the court grants a motion for new trial, the order must state whether it is based on the record or on facts and circumstances outside the record that cannot be made part of it.

• Based on the record: the court "shall give definite reasons of law and facts" for the order.
• Based on matters outside the record: the court "shall state the facts and circumstances upon which it relied."

An order granting a new trial without that content is incomplete on its face, and the requirement exists for the benefit of the appellate court.

Bench trials

CR 59(g): on a motion for new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct entry of a new judgment.

That is a wider remedy than a new trial as such — the court can fix the decision rather than redo the trial.

One bite before judgment

CR 59(j):

If a motion for reconsideration, or for a new trial, or for judgment as a matter of law, is made and heard before the entry of the judgment, no further motion may be made without leave of the court first obtained for good cause shown: (1) for a new trial, (2) pursuant to sections (g), (h), and (i) of this rule, or (3) under rule 52(b).

So a party who moves and is heard pre-judgment cannot then file the same challenge again after entry. Leave and good cause are required.

CR 59(i) allows alternative motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, made in accordance with CR 50(c).

CR 59 or CR 60?

These are different tools and the choice usually comes down to timing and target.

CR 59 is for challenging the decision itself — error, insufficient evidence, excessive damages, substantial justice — within 10 days of entry.

CR 60(b) is for relief from a judgment on grounds outside the merits: mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, a satisfied judgment. Its clock is longer and it does not require the motion to be heard within 30 days.

Newly discovered evidence appears in both — CR 59(a)(4) and CR 60(b)(3). Inside 10 days, CR 59 is available; after that, CR 60 is the route. The guide on setting aside a Washington judgment covers CR 60.

How Washington compares

A short checklist

1. Calendar 10 days from entry, not from notice of entry.
2. Note the motion the day you file it, for a hearing within 30 days of entry.
3. File your affidavits with the motion. CR 59(c) does not let you add them later as of right.
4. Match each argument to a numbered ground and state the specific reasons in fact and law — CR 59(b) requires it.
5. Check whether you objected at the time before relying on ground (8).
6. If you were heard before entry of judgment, CR 59(j) means you need leave to come back.
7. If you are past 10 days, look at CR 60(b) instead — and check whether an appeal deadline is running.

Where these rules live

• Wash. CR 50 — Judgment as a matter of law in jury trials; alternative motion for new trial
• Wash. CR 52 — Decisions, findings and conclusions
• Wash. CR 54 — Judgments and costs
• Wash. CR 58 — Entry of judgment
• Wash. CR 59 — New trial, reconsideration, and amendment of judgments
• Wash. CR 60 — Relief from judgment or order
• Wash. CR 62 — Stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment

Appellate deadlines are set by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which this site doesn't cover, and a CR 59 motion can affect them. This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice.