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

CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

Motion for Sanctions – DENIED Before the Court is the Motion by Plaintiff City of Costa Mesa for monetary sanctions under Civil Procedure Code (“CCP”) Section 128.7 for the filing of a motion by Defendant RAW LLC (“RAW”) for preliminary injunction or, alternatively, for a stay of this action (the “Sanctions Motion”). The Sanctions Motion seeks sanctions only against Defendant RAW, not against RAW’s counsel.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ZULEMA BAEZ, ET AL. VS CENTINELA FEED, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to settle all claims for the total amount of $11,000,000.00. The Claimants, by and through their guardian ad litem and attorney of record, will each receive $1,000,000.00; Baez will receive $6,000,000.00, and Paulina will receive $1,000,000.00. If the settlement is approved, $250,000.00 of each of the Claimants’ amounts will be used for attorneys’ fees. All costs are being apportioned to Baez only.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

GMP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. V. METAFORMULA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

‘The reason for the rule is simply that where the parties have freely, fairly and voluntarily bargained for certain benefits in exchange for undertaking certain obligations, it would be inequitable to imply a different liability…” (Id.).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

HAMVAY V. KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE, LLC

Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories OFF CALENDAR – Telephone withdrawal by moving party

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

BEYER VS. ALI

Motion 4: Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One. Moving Party Defendant Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (“OCMMC”). Responding Party Plaintiff Paul H. Beyer. Ruling: Defendant OCMMC’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One is granted. Plaintiff shall produce documents and provide verified responses, without objections, to OCMMC’s Request for Production, Set One within 15 days of service of notice of ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

EVANS V. LE GRAND MAISON, LLC

Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, “[a] motion to remove a mechanic’s lien is recognized as a device that allows the property owner to obtain speedy relief from an unjustified lien or a lien of an unjustified amount without waiting for trial on the action to foreclose the lien.” (Id. at 318).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MARITZA GARCIA VS TRINET HR II HOLDINGS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

“[U]nder both the FAA and California law, ‘arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’ ” (Higgins v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to grant a petition to compel arbitration ‘if the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.’” (Avery v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HARVEY KREITENBERG, ET AL. VS MICHAEL ROSENBERG, ET AL.

Based on the Court’s ruling on the motion to quash service of summons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Ministerios Cristianos Guerreros De Jehova’s motion to quash deposition notices. III. Motion for Protective Order Defendant Michael Rosenberg moves “for an order that he need not answer the RFPs on the grounds that the discovery was improperly served as will be determined by the Motion to Quash Service of Summons.” (Motion for Protective Order, p. 2:10-12.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Additionally, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).) Defendants Dean A. Avedon and Bemel, Ross & Avedon (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order compelling responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set Two, propounded on Plaintiffs Hero Dogs Season One LLC and Nuriya Entertainment LLC (“Plaintiffs”) on May 11, 2020. (Dean Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) As of the filing of the motion, no responses have been received.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NORMANDIYA VS TECHSON ELECTRONICS, INC.

TENTATIVE RULING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY V TECHSON ELECTRONICS 20VECV00015 MOTION TO DISMISS 9/21/2020 MOTION IS GRANTED. THE COURT ORDERS CLERK OF THE COURT TO ENTER A JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 581(f)(2) IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR FAILING TO AMEND AFTER DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. THE DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED ON 6/29/2020 WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT ON 6/29/2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

LEV INVESTMENTS, LLC VS RUVIN FEYGENBERG, ET AL.

Indeed, the matter was remanded only in part less than a week before the hearing on this motion and after the date for opposition. Accordingly, the Court denies the request for sanctions. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Trustee and Kemel’s motion to compel the depositions of Defendants is GRANTED, but their request for sanctions is denied. Trustee and Kemel are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling. DATED: September 21, 2020 _____________________ Hon. Theresa M.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BARRY KELLMAN VS TITLE RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff Barry Kellman (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Temidayo Akinyemi (“Akinyemi”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1-4, Form Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, and Requests for Production (Set One) Nos 1-9. Plaintiff also moves to compel Defendant Title Recovery Services LLC (“TRS”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos 1-4 and Requests for Production (Set One) Nos 1-15. (Notices of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CERTAIN UNDERWRITTERS AT LLOYDS' SUBSCRIBING TO COVER NOTE B0509MARCR1900001, ET AL. VS APEX LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

TRIAL DATE: October 12, 2021 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration OPPOSITION: September 4, 2020 REPLY: September 14, 2020 TENTATIVE: Securitas’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to arbitrate their causes of action against Securitas. The remainder of this action is ordered stayed pending the completion of arbitration or further order of the court. Securitas is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

Plaintiff’s notice of motion and separate statement Plaintiff’s notice of motion and separate statement violate procedural requirements. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b) requires a notice of motion for summary adjudication to identify each specific cause of action and claims for damages for which summary adjudication is sought. Here, Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not identify the individual issues.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

Legal Standard The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IN THE MATTER OF: MARION PIUZE

In light of the issues presented, the Court CONTINUES Petitioner Marion Piuze's Ex Parte Application For Order Appointing Corporate Director to September 28, 2020, 8:30 a.m. The Court needs additional time to review the petition filed and the applicable authority. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DO VS RANDOLPH

There are several issues with this motion, included among them is that trial is now scheduled for 10/26/20, which allows parties plenty of time to participate in a conference. To the extent that parties did not participate in a conference prior to the earlier 03/02/20 trial date, that issue is moot as trial has been continued.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CAMPUZANO VS. CONTRERAS

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions Moving Party: Plaintiff Eduardo Campuzano Responding Party: Defendants Mariana and Norma Contreas Ruling: Plaintiff Eduardo Campuzano’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission is GRANTED. Within twenty (20) days, Defendants shall respond without objection to the discovery. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

RYNO MANUFACTURING, LLC VS. EKLUND

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (i) existence of the contract; (ii) Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (iii) Defendant’s breach; and (iv) damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811.) Here, the SAC alleges facts sufficient to support each element of the breach of contract claim against Defendant Eklund. (SAC ¶¶ 27, 28, 30, Exs. A at §§ 2.4, 4.1(B).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

GRUNFELD V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

The Section 998 offer did not call for entry of judgment; thus, this cost is not reasonable. Additionally, Defendant seeks to tax $150.00 in costs anticipated by Plaintiff to be incurred for a motion for attorney’s fees, and $150.00 in costs anticipated by Plaintiff to be incurred for Defendant’s motion to strike/tax costs. Plaintiff has not met his burden in opposition to demonstrate that these costs are reasonable. It is not entirely clear from the opposition what these amounts are comprised of.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SALISBURY GROUP, INC. V. EDALAT

These billing statements allegedly revealed overbilling, duplicative billing, a failure to credit payments (including cash payments and nutritional products) that were made by or on behalf of Edalat, a failure to provide the ten percent discount for cash payments requested by Cross-Defendants, a failure to provide the agreed-upon $300 hourly rate that was to begin in February 2016, and billing for fees and costs allegedly incurred in December 2016 and January 2016, six to seven months after the attorney-client

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ALVAREZ VS ZOOK

Moreover, given the lack of real controversy regarding the subpoena to Riverside County Medical Services, and the inability of the parties to resolve this motion after the court’s unopposed ruling on a similar motion on September 16, it appears that both sides are more interested in litigation for litigation’s sake than in resolution. For all those reasons, both sides’ requests for sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MANUEL DE LA CRUZ

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default on September 6, 2019 without proof of service of the same on Plaintiff. Additionally, the Motion was not brought pursuant to any legal authority. The Motion initially came for hearing on September 19, 2019, at which time it was continued to allow service of the motion papers on Plaintiff and for Defendant to file and serve supplemental papers setting forth the legal basis of his request for relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JASMINE JI, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ji v. Los Angeles County Fair Association, et al. The Court excuses the personal appearance of the Claimant, Jasmine Ji. The petitioner and guardian ad litem, Jingjing Wang, may appear at the time of the hearing by telephone or video. The Court has reviewed and heard the Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action of a Minor (Jasmine J...

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL. VS STEVEN BEAUCHMAN

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. STEVEN BEAUCHMAN, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: 18STCV08350 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN PART Dept. 31 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  « 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.