What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion for New Trial

226-250 of 10000 results

ESTATE OF SAM DEAN JR. VS. ISABELLA BRUCE

HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FILED BY ESTATE OF SAM DEAN JR., JOHN DEAN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Motion for plaintiff’s attorney to be relieved as counsel is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

RE: AMENDED PET’N FOR FEES; REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES

FILED ON 12/09/19 BY GERARD SMITS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Drop. Need appearances Note: Notice of Settlement of Entire Case filed 7-13-2020. MARK A MILLER ERIN A NORC...

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GDNSHIP OF YINING HE

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON FILED ON 06/09/20 BY YINING HE PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Court Investigator’s Report PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 30 -- File in Dept. 30 Moving paper is in Vol. 5 Need: 1. Appearances to report status 2. Verified declaration in support of attorneys’ and trustee’s fees paid as reported at schedule of disbursements.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF C'TOR, PERSON AND ESTATE

COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Order Appointing Probate Conservator Form GC-340 (adopted 1-15-16) The Court is waiting for these items: 1. John Salvador to appear or waiver by counsel 2. Report of Atty. Daniel S. Vaughan (MNCD) C.C. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPT COUNTY COUNSEL JOHN SALVADOR DANIEL S.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. CANNON

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER DISCHARGING PLAINTIFF FROM LITIGATION FILED BY AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion to discharge AAA is denied without prejudice. AAA has still not effected service of the litigation on defendant Xavian Cannon.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

BURTON VS. TSE

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND FILED BY RODNEY TSE * TENTATIVE RULING: * The unopposed motion to compel responses to defendant’s supplemental form interrogatories and supplemental document demands is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to respond within 10 days of the hearing on this matter.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

WICKMAN VS. COUNTRYWOOD SHOPPING

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FILED BY VIVAN WICKMAN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by agreement of parties to August 19, 2020 at 9:00 am.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

NUANCE VS. KODIAK

HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FILED BY NUANCE ENERGY GROUP, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Unopposed motion for plaintiff’s attorney to be relieved as counsel is granted. The Court will sign the order provided.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

GDNSHIP OF RUPERTO REYES SERRANO

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF GDN, PERSON FILED ON 06/02/20 BY OBDULIA REYES-HUERTA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Court Investigator’s Report PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Resolution of Line # 25.B. YINING HE ALEXANDRA DANIELLE WILSON

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE COURT TRIAL RE: PET'N FOR APPTMENT OF C'TOR

Need appearances Note: First Account and Report filed by CSC Fiduciaries, Inc. is set for hearing 8-31-2020. CSC FIDUCIARY, INC. KATHRYN S KORN DIANA LOWE CRAIG L. JUDSON IVY NADINE COPANSKY KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS IVY NADINE COPANSKY KONSTATINE A DEMIRIS JANICE KITTREDGE CRAIG L. JUDSON JAY ZIMMER CRAIG L. JUDSON JILL JUDSON KATHRYN S KORN MELVIN PAUL COPANSKY

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE COURT TRIAL RE: PET'N FOR ORDERS APPROVING & SETTLNG 1ST

ACCT FILED ON 06/04/18 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances FILED ON 03/09/18 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances...

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RAGO VS. RAPOSO

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES & COSTS FILED BY JOSE JACINTO RAPOSO, LAURA RAPOSO * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by stipulation to September 9, 2020 at 9:00 AM.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

MANOLO RODAS VS. UST TESTING SERVICES

HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 1st Amended ANSWER FILED BY UST TESTING SERVICES INC., JAIME OCHOA BAROJAS * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant’s motion to file the first amended answer is denied without prejudice due to a failure to file a proof of service.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

CONS. OF CARSON DAVIS KELLY

UCCJEA Form FL-105 filed with locations where minor has lived for the past five years 6. Proposed order The Court is still waiting for: A. Court Investigator’s Report B. Appointment of counsel for minor C.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS OF MINNIE SUE COMBS

Bond presented for filing before Order will be signed. 4. Proposed Order The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Report of Atty. Alex Chen CAROL WU MATTHEW B TALBOT CHRISTINE XIAO WONG JAMES T. DUFOUR JOHN YICK ON WONG ALEX CHEN KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS MATTHEW B TALBOT MATTHEW B TALBOT PAMELA R REGATUSO MONA NIA PAMELA R. REGATUSO OLIVER W.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CENTRAL COSTA BARNS VS. R.E. MILANO PLUMBING

Background On or about May 16, 2019, Plaintiff Central Coast Barns and Buildings, Inc. contracted with Defendant Robert Romeo for construction work. Plaintiff performed grading, leveling and soil compaction for a road on Defendant’s 120-acre ranch at 370 Lindsey Drive in Martinez. Plaintiff submitted an invoice and Defendant has refused to pay. Plaintiff filed this action for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

YESAI SANOYAN VS LUSINE GAMBARYAN

This new argument on reply will not be considered. The purpose of a reply brief is to address arguments made in the Opposition; it may not be used to raise new arguments, present new authorities, or introduce new evidence. Points raised for the first time in a reply brief ordinarily will not be considered because such consideration would either deprive respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument or require the effort and delay of additional brief by permission.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On April 3, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further discovery responses relating to Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. On May 15, Plaintiff filed another motion to compel further to compel production of Defendant’s cell phone records and to compel Defendant to sign an authorization for such records. Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel are premature and will be continued to a new date as set forth below.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

TNT MANAGAMENT VS LANKFORD HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF TNT MANAGEMENT LLC BY BOONSIENG BENJAUTHRIT, JULIE MILLINGER, VEENA BENJAUTHRIT

for five years. (5) The holder must pay all the taxes levied and assessed upon the property during the period.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

BARBARA KATZER VS BRISTOL FARMS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

There is no opposition to this motion. The Court therefore grants the motion. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted. Defendant shall file its cross-complaint within ten (10) days. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: August 12, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

The Court finds that the nature of Plaintiff’s objection would have properly been asserted as a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) This ground for demurrer is not persuasive. 2. Failure To State Facts Sufficient To Constitute A Defense To The Complaint. Plaintiff indicates he moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Defendant’s Answer. This is improper motion practice. Plaintiff noticed a demurrer, not a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

GLENN GRESKO, ET AL. VS HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

In Stangvik, the California Supreme Court set forth the forum non conveniens analysis: In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a “suitable” place for trial. If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LISANDRA VALVERDE MENDOZA VS JAMES MARK MEIZLIK , ET AL.

Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) For the purpose of a motion to strike, the Code of Civil Procedure defines a “pleading” as a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross- complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(a)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

BETTY ZORNIZER VS MARK STEVEN ARONOWICZ, ET AL.

Here, section 428.10(b) does not apply to Plaintiff’s new claims in the cross-complaint. Plaintiff’s inclusion of these two claims is improper. Plaintiff should have filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert the other two causes of action. Therefore, Defendant Herbert C. Rubinstein’s motion to strike is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, VS JAY GLADSTEIN, ET AL.

Global Research Institute, a California Corporation MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Research & Development Institute RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Global Research Institute TRIAL DATE: October 5, 2021 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena or, in the alternative, for Protective Order OPPOSITION: April 13, 2020 REPLY: August 5, 2020 TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or, in the alternative, for a Protective Order is DENIED. Defendant is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.