Is a party's failure to comply with section 657, 659 of the California Code of Civil Procedure to seek a new trial invalid?

Sections 657, 659, and 660, which govern on what ground and in what time period a litigant may seek a new trial, fall into the jurisdictional category. Not only is a party's attempt to file a notice of intent after the relevant deadline invalid, but the court has no power to issue a ruling on the basis of an untimely filed notice or on a ground not set forth in the statute. (See 660 ["the power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 60 days from" the mailing, service, or relevant filing]; Watkins v. Nutting (1941) 17 Cal.2d 490, 499, 110 P.2d 384 ["A notice of intention to move for a new trial upon one or more of the grounds specified in the Code of Civil Procedure is essential

[386 P.3d 1168]

to the court's jurisdiction."]; Wagner v. Singleton , supra , 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 72, 183 Cal.Rptr. 631 [trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant new trial on grounds not specified in the notice of intent]; In re Marriage of Beilock (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 713, 721, 146 Cal.Rptr. 675 ["It is well settled that a timely filing of the notice of intention to move for a new trial [under section 659 ] is jurisdictional, and the time cannot be extended or waived by the parties."].) Thus, a party's failure to comply with any of these sections " may be raised for the first time on appeal. " (Lara , supra , 48 Cal.4th at p. 225, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 208, 226 P.3d 322.)