A motion for new trial requests “a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court after a trial and decision by a jury, court, or referee.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 656; Guzman v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 705, 707-708.)
“[T]he proceedings on a motion for new trial are strictly statutory, and the procedure for seeking relief must conform strictly to the statutory mandate.” (People v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 593, 601.)
In ruling on the merits of a motion for new trial, the Court begins with the basic premise of Article VI of the California Constitution. Section 13 of Article VI requires that “no judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (Cal. Constitution, § 13, Article VI; Maher v. Saad (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1324, fn. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 657.)
Motions for a new trial are governed by Code of Civil Procedures sections 656 and 657. According to section 657, “the verdict may be vacated and any other decision may be modified or vacated, in whole or in part, and a new or further trial granted on all or part of the issues, on the application of the party aggrieved, for any of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party:
(Code Civ. Proc., § 657; see also Montoya v. Barragan (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1229–1230; Gray v. Robinson (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 177, 182.)
While “the trial court has no inherent power to grant a new trial, it has wide discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial.” (City of L.A. v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 871-72.) There is “no standard or test to guide the trial judge.” (Perry v. Fowler (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 808, 811.) As such, “the court must exercise discriminating judgment within the bounds of reason.” (Johns v. City of L.A. (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 983, 987.)
“[T]he court’s exercise of discretion is accorded great deference on appeal. An abuse of discretion occurs if, in light of the applicable law and considering all of the relevant circumstances, the court’s decision exceeds the bounds of reason and results in a miscarriage of justice.” (Fassberg Const. Co. v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 720, 751-752.)
But granting “a new trial for harmless error violates the constitutional provision and wastes judicial time and resources to no purpose.” (Garcia v. County of L.A. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 633, 641.)
In considering a motion for new trial, the court is entitled to “reweigh evidence, consider the credibility of witnesses, and draw reasonable inferences contrary to those accepted by the jury.” (Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 112.) “If the judge is unsatisfied with the verdict or decision and the statutory grounds for granting a new trial exist, he or she has a duty to grant the motion.” (Pollitz v. Wickersham (1907) 150 Cal. 238, 244.)
However, “a new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, nor upon the ground of excessive or inadequate damages, unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) That is, the court is “vested with the authority... to disbelieve witnesses, reweigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences therefrom contrary to those of the trier of fact.” (Casella v. SouthWest Dealer Servs., Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1159-60, quoting Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 112.)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 659, “the party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of his or her intention to move for a new trial, designating the grounds upon which the motion will be made and whether the same will be made upon affidavits or the minutes of the court, or both, either:
(Code Civ. Proc., § 659; Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1469; Palmer v. GTE California, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1265, 1267.)
Moreover, “the power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 75 days after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk or 75 days after service on the moving party of written notice of entry of judgment, whichever is earlier, or if that notice has not been given, 75 days after the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 660(c).)
These “time limits are jurisdictional and cannot be altered.” (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.)
Motions made under Code of Civil Procedure § 657(1), (2), (3) or (4) must be based on affidavits. Motions asserted under Code of Civil Procedure § 657, subsections (5), (6) and (7) must be made on the minutes of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 658.)
JAMAL RASHID plaintiff’s application for writ of possession Date of Hearing: January 20, 2021 Trial Date: None set. Department: W Case No.: 19VECV01635 Moving Party: Plaintiff Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA, LLC Responding Party: No opposition. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jamal Rashid dba VIP Services Ent. adba VIP Services Entertainment adba Future Music (“Defendant”) entered into a Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement with Plaintiff’s assignor for a 2016 Mercedes Benz S600X vehicle.
Jan 20, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF REGAN COPELAND AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BC662539 1/20/2021 8:30 A.M. DEPT. T NO OPPOSITION RECEIVED. GRANT MOTION TO COMPEL MUST BE BY REMOTE PROCEEDINGS ONLY TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN 20 DAYS ON A DATE AND TIME CONVENIENT TO ALL PARTIES. IF NO AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED, DEPO TO TAKE PLACE ON 2/8/2021 AT 10 A.M.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.
Jan 20, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to the Terms of the Settlement is granted. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Isidro Valencia in the sum of $36,949.61. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Jan 20, 2021
Collections
Collections
Los Angeles County, CA
Thus, the 20-day deadline to apply for an order for sale of dwelling expired on November 23, 2020. The current application was timely filed on November 19, 2020.
Jan 20, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
The demurrer to the fifth cause of action for “professional negligence” is sustained without leave to amend. The allegations in the fourth cause of action shall be understood to apply to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for professional negligence. The demurrer to the sixth cause of action for “coercion” is sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer is overruled in all other respects. Motion to Quash. The motion to quash is granted. Request for Judicial Notice.
Jan 20, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.) The Court notes that trial is not yet set in this matter and no other motions are currently on calendar. Accordingly, no prejudice will result in granting this motion. Nevertheless, the Court finds that counsel’s motion is deficient. Counsel has failed to file a Proof of Service indicating service of the moving papers on opposing counsel.
Jan 20, 2021
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 20STCV12299 Hearing Date: January 20, 2021 Defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings is GRANTED. On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff Isabella Klugh (Plaintiff), acting as an individual, and on behalf of the State of California and all aggrieved employees as a Private Attorney General, filed suit against Hillstone Restaurant Group (Defendant) seeking penalties for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Defendant now moves for a stay of proceedings.
Jan 20, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Live Nation Worldwide On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted , Set One, to Defendant Wide Awake, LLC, Filed by the Plaintiff , and Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted , Set One, to Defendant Craig Cortes, Filed by the Plaintiff, currently scheduled for 01/20/2021 are continued to 01/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. Moving party to give notice.
Jan 20, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center On the Court's own motion, Defendant's Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff's Complaint (CCP Section 437c) scheduled for 01/20/2021 is continued to 01/29/2021 at 01:30 PM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. Moving Party is ordered to give notice.
Jan 20, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.
Jan 20, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
The Instant Motion before the Court On December 18, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (a) to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, W Unlimited Inc., which is in possession of the funds that are subject of Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment action. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff opposed and filed evidentiary objections.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Raygoza et al On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Defendants Maria Raygoza, Antonio Raygoza, and Juan Ragoza's Motions to Compel Discovery (Responses to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions) currently set for January 20, 2021 are continued to January 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Star Stone On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Trial Preference Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 36(a) [EX-PARTE FILED 12/04/2020 DEEMED TO BE THE MOVING PAPERS] scheduled for 01/20/2021 is continued to 01/22/2021 at 01:30 PM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. Moving party to give notice
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. The Court finds that US Fire acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion. The motion was not granted in full, and the arguments made were ponderable. (CCP § 2025.450(g)(1).) CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RPD, Set One is MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in connection the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Mark Yavinsky is GRANTED IN PART.
Jan 20, 2021
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
The motion is denied.
Jan 20, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Plaintiff moved to deem Requests for Admissions admitted and on August 25, 2020 Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions directed to Go Fresh LLC and Mohammad Kaskas were deemed admitted. Here, Defendants retained new counsel on October 22, 2020. New counsel, in conjunction with Defendants, have apparently remedied the prior discovery lapses and served verified responses to the RFAs. (Decl., Bryan Theis, ¶¶ 7-14.)
Jan 20, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
The tenth cause of action’s allegations of discrimination do not differ from those alleged under the first cause of action for disability discrimination, and the eleventh cause of action’s allegations of harassment fall within the realm of the eighth cause of action for hostile work environment/harassment. These claims are again duplicative of relief requested elsewhere in the FAC, and do not assert any new claim against Defendant.
Jan 20, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Volkswagen Group of America, et al. 19TRCV00776 Tobin Lanzetta’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to Request for Production of Documents, Set One TENTATIVE RULING Tobin Laznetta’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Documents to Request for Production of Documents, Set One is granted. Meet and Confer Plaintiff set forth a meet and confer declaration in substantial compliance with CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). (Declaration, Benjeman Beck, ¶¶ 15-23; ).
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
A new, free Public Access number for Department J6 through CourtCall, effective June 15, 2020 is available for all hearings in Department J6. Any interested person or member of the public can dial in and observe the court (audio only) using the phone number below. A person will not be able to speak or participate on this free public line. It is only for listening as if you were sitting in the courtroom observing the proceedings. Please note that this number is specific to Department J6.
Jan 19, 2021
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
A new, free Public Access number for Department J6 through CourtCall, effective June 15, 2020 is available for all hearings in Department J6. Any interested person or member of the public can dial in and observe the court (audio only) using the phone number below. A person will not be able to speak or participate on this free public line. It is only for listening as if you were sitting in the courtroom observing the proceedings. Please note that this number is specific to Department J6.
Jan 19, 2021
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
A new, free Public Access number for Department J6 through CourtCall, effective June 15, 2020 is available for all hearings in Department J6. Any interested person or member of the public can dial in and observe the court (audio only) using the phone number below. A person will not be able to speak or participate on this free public line. It is only for listening as if you were sitting in the courtroom observing the proceedings. Please note that this number is specific to Department J6.
Jan 19, 2021
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
A new, free Public Access number for Department J6 through CourtCall, effective June 15, 2020 is available for all hearings in Department J6. Any interested person or member of the public can dial in and observe the court (audio only) using the phone number below. A person will not be able to speak or participate on this free public line. It is only for listening as if you were sitting in the courtroom observing the proceedings. Please note that this number is specific to Department J6.
Jan 19, 2021
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
A new, free Public Access number for Department J6 through CourtCall, effective June 15, 2020 is available for all hearings in Department J6. Any interested person or member of the public can dial in and observe the court (audio only) using the phone number below. A person will not be able to speak or participate on this free public line. It is only for listening as if you were sitting in the courtroom observing the proceedings. Please note that this number is specific to Department J6.
Jan 19, 2021
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
A new, free Public Access number for Department J6 through CourtCall, effective June 15, 2020 is available for all hearings in Department J6. Any interested person or member of the public can dial in and observe the court (audio only) using the phone number below. A person will not be able to speak or participate on this free public line. It is only for listening as if you were sitting in the courtroom observing the proceedings. Please note that this number is specific to Department J6.
Jan 19, 2021
Family Law
Conservatorship
Ventura County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.