What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Resources for Motion for New Trial

Rulings on Motion for New Trial

26-50 of 10000 results

UN CHU KO VS YOUNG BONG OH ET AL

Instead, she is bringing the request for a continuance of the trial because she would like to add defendants and use the additional defendants as another ground for her motion for new trial. Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the trial in order to add new defendants is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motions for new trial are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARIA ELENA CERVANTES VS WAL MART SUPERCENTER

for a new trial.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SILVER ATUSERI VS TRAVEL GUARD CHARTIS

Atuseri moves for a new trial on the basis that she should be allowed to present evidence of the payment of the medical bills at issue. Atuseri states that her previous motions to the court for a continuance of the trial to present this evidence were denied. (Motion for New Trial at p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2016

BRUCE LANDAU VS DERMOT GIVENS, ET AL.,

Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial or Additur is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2017

YOUNG VS. HSBC BANK USA, A US CORPORATION

As such, it appears Plaintiff is also bringing a motion for new trial.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

KARAMOOZ - PROBATE

1) Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict 2)Motion for New Trial 3)Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Tax Costs Defendant’s Motions for New Trial and JNOV Defendant’s motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the filing of the 02/23/17 opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2017

GET IT DONE HOUSE BUYERS INC VS RUBEN EDUARDO ACEVES

THEREFORE, the motion for new trial is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

GET IT DONE HOUSE BUYERS INC VS RUBEN EDUARDO ACEVES

THEREFORE, the motion for new trial is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

GET IT DONE HOUSE BUYERS INC VS RUBEN EDUARDO ACEVES

THEREFORE, the motion for new trial is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

PUREFITNESS DOWNTOWN SPORTS CLUB INC VS. WESTGATE HOTEL COMPANY

The motion for new trial, filed by PureFitness Downtown Sports Club, Inc., Michael London, and PureFitness Holding Company, Inc., is denied. Preliminary Matters The Court has not considered new evidence that was submitted for the first time in reply. Discussion A party seeking a new trial must file and serve a timely notice of intention to move for a new trial. Code Civ. Proc., § 659.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BERNARD PARLANGE VS BEVERLY HILLS CAR CLUB INC

These deadlines are not extended by CCP § 1013 (which otherwise extends the time for exercising any right following service by mail). CCP § 663a(c). The deadline the motion to vacate the judgment is jurisdictional. Conservatorship of Townsend (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 691. Because these deadlines are the same as the deadlines for a motion for new trial, Defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment is untimely for the same reasons the motion for new trial is untimely.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

GET IT DONE HOUSE BUYERS INC VS RUBEN EDUARDO ACEVES

THEREFORE, the motion for new trial is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

UN CHU KO VS YOUNG BONG OH ET AL

SUBJECT: Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Moving Party: Plaintiff Un Chu Ko Resp. Party: Defendant Young Bong Oh et al. The motions for a new trial are DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: It is not clear to the Court why Plaintiff has filed three separate motions for a new trial; there is substantial overlap in the arguments presented in the three motions.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

QI, LIANG VS CHEN, YINGYING

The notice and motion, therefore, were three days untimely. Failure to timely file a notice of motion for new trial within the statutory period deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the motion: A motion for a new trial is ‘a new statutory proceeding, collateral to the original proceeding’ and constitutes a new action brought to set aside the judgment.” (Spruce v. Wellman (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 158, 161, 219 P.2d 472.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAIDEN V. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.

That said, the Court will assume for the sake of argument that a motion for new trial can be made under these circumstances; review the law regarding motions for new trial; and determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to such relief here. The requirements and grounds for new trial are entirely statutory. Wegner et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Trials & Ev. (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 18:131.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS KEDI ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Hongshan Wang OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff, The People of the State of California TRIAL DATE: November 17, 2020 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Defendant’s Motion for New Trial OPPOSITION: August 27, 2020 REPLY: None as of September 10, 2020 TENTATIVE: Defendant Wang’s motion for a new trial is DENIED. Plaintiff is to give notice. Background This is a motion for a new trial following the granting of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SCALLON V. THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, TREASURE-TAX COLLECTOR

Motion by Plaintiff David Scallon for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict The motion by plaintiff David M. Scallon for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is DENIED. “A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is proper only when no substantial evidence and no reasonable inference therefrom support the jury's verdict.” Hauter v. Zogarts, 14 Cal.3d 104, 110 (1975). Plaintiff has not met this standard. 2. Motion for New Trial by Plaintiff David Scallon: Plaintiff’s motion for new trial is also DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

BAILEY VS. BAIRES

The trial court granted respondent’s motion to preclude appellant from introducing any expert testimony because appellant had not complied with a demand for exchange of expert witness information that respondent had made in the prior trial, and eventually granted respondent’s motion for nonsuit. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

XIN VS. LI

TENTATIVBE RULING: Motion for New Trial The motion of defendants Andy Tu, Linda Li, Helen Wei, ATLI Enterprises LLC and V Star, Inc. and Cross-Complainants Linda Li, ATLI Enterprises LLC and V Star, Inc. for new trial is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2018

XIN VS. LI

TENTATIVBE RULING: Motion for New Trial The motion of defendants Andy Tu, Linda Li, Helen Wei, ATLI Enterprises LLC and V Star, Inc. and Cross-Complainants Linda Li, ATLI Enterprises LLC and V Star, Inc. for new trial is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2018

ARTIK AVANESSIANS, ET AL. VS SEYED KALEEM

Instead, the Defendant filed the pending motion on November 21, 2017, which was 57 days after the Court Clerk mailed the entry of judgment and 42 days after the time period to file a notice of intent to seek a new trial had ended. Further, the Court’s power to rule on the Defendant’s motion for a new trial ended on November 25, 2017. Since the Defendant did not ensure that the hearing date was before November 25, 2017, the Defendant’s motion for a new trial is denied by operation of law.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2018

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DENISE THOMAS ET AL VS ELIZABETH CASTANEDA

As no judgment or verdict has been entered against Plaintiff LGT, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff LGT’s motion for new trial, and her motion is denied on this basis. Reconsideration Rather than a true motion for a new trial, Plaintiffs’ motion appears to be an improper attempt at a motion for reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KAREN DRAPER ET AL VS RH PETERSON CO

Based on the foregoing, the court would treat this motion for new trial similarly to a motion for new trial challenging a granted summary judgment motion, and therefore, the motions to dismiss may be reversed if there is newly discovered evidence. Thus, the applicable grounds for new trial under these circumstances are newly discovered evidence (CCP § 657(4)) and surprise (CCP § 657(3)). Plaintiffs’ motion brings the court’s attention to two new facts.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PACIFIC INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE VS. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY

On 9/27/16, the Court granted Scottsdale's motion for summary judgment. ROA # 107. 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial Plaintiff moves for reconsideration or new trial based on new evidence: the deposition of its expert Ralph Peters. Peters opines that Scottsdale and its appointed counsel (Smith Freed) had a conflict of interest. The summary judgment motion was heard September 16.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STERNICK, LAURA V. STOCKTON CATHOLIC DIOCESE/MADONA RETREAT

As such, plaintiff’s motion is denied as none of the grounds for granting a new trial pursuant to CCP section 657 apply. Again, plaintiff was aware before trial of the evidence that she is not claiming as “new.” So plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. Finally, although plaintiff labeled her motion as an Appeal of Order, trial courts do not have jurisdiction over appeals of its orders. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s “Motion for Appeal” is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2019

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.