What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion for New Trial

76-100 of 10000 results

INVESERVE CORPORATION VS. GGG HOLDINGS, L.L.C., ET AL

Thus, the Court is inclined to deny the motion as to the new parties. DISCUSSION RE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Defendants GGG and Hanson Trust seek terminating sanctions against Plaintiff InveServe on InveServe’s complaint and the cross-complaint. Defendants argue that despite the Court’s orders requiring InveServe to comply with its discovery obligations, InveServe has failed to provide responses to requests for production of documents (“RPD”) and form interrogatories (“FROG”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

The Court GRANTS The Board’s request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (h).) B. Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to deter allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALEX PEREZ VS CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

For example, with regard to the 7th affirmative defense of indemnity, Beacon responds that it appeared relevant and it reserves the right to amend the response. Beacon also identifies Plaintiff, Responding Party, or Defendant and its employees for subpart (b), which again fails to answer the subpart as asked—i.e., stating the name and contact information for such individuals. Subpart (c) is not complete for the same reasons. Thus, this is not a full and complete response.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TOROVERDE, INC. VS. ELEMENT 7, INC.

Plaintiff also purchased a property for $625,000. Thus, defendants have made the required showing and plaintiff has failed to rebut it, requiring the denial of plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to plaintiff refiling it after plaintiff qualifies to do business in California. Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS VIKRAM J. SINGH, M.D., ET AL.

On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed this complaint in camera and under seal for violation of Insurance Frauds Prevention Act against Defendants Vikram J. Singh, M.D., Back and Pain Specialists, Nova Surgical Institute, and Nova Surgical Institute, LLC. On May 18, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to unseal the complaint. On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant application of Anne Raven to appear as counsel pro hac vice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAMID VS. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling to the LWDA, and to defendants, to serve the LWDA with his original moving papers as well as any new papers filed for future hearings, and to file a proof of service showing compliance.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

ORLANDO J CASTANO, JR VS CHRIS BROWN

Should a dispute occur during or after the Term of this Agreement, both Parties agree to binding arbitration in accordance with rules upon which the Parties agree at the time the dispute arises, provided, however, that parties cannot agree upon rules for the arbitration within 30 days alter either demands arbitration, then the arbitration will take place before an Alternative Dispute Resolution company for Arbitration in Los Angeles, California, under the rules of the Association then in effect.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

FORWARD FINANCING, LLC VS CAMS COMPANY PACKAGING SUPPLIES, INC., ET AL.

The Court notes that the motion was initially set for hearing on November 15, 2019, but the Court continued the motion to January 31, 2020 on the basis that there was no proof of service showing that Respondents had been served with the petition papers. On January 31, 2020, the Court continued the motion to March 27, 2020 to cure issues with notice and to order Petitioner to file and serve a memorandum of points and authorities in support of its petition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARY PATENT ET AL VS OLATUNJI BANDELE D V M ET AL

On November 20, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions to reconsider the Court’s decision regarding (1) the motion for summary judgment/adjudication and (2) the amended motion to vacate settlement agreement. On January 9, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for leave to file a first amended answer. On March 2, 2020, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Labor Code §§ 201-203 On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Yiping Ye (“Ye”) was substituted in for Doe 1. On March 18, 2019, Hummingbird’s answer was stricken. On March 27, 2019, Hummingbird’s default was entered. On May 9, 2019, the court granted, inter alia, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for amendment to complaint. On August 7, 2019, Ye’s default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for August 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANAHEIM GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

Continued to 8/21/2020 on the court’s own motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

SHAWN STEWART VS SMARTCLINIC, INC., ET AL.

The Final Status Conference is set for February 8, 2021. Trial is set for February 16, 2021. Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

LARA VS. MARUCHAN, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Court Order of Individual Claim Arbitration or to Reconsider Same is denied. Defendant Maruchan, Inc.’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Plaintiff has not provided any legitimate basis for this court to vacate or reconsider its prior ruling, made almost eight months before plaintiff filed this motion, compelling plaintiff to arbitrate her individual claims and staying her class and PAGA claims.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

FRED BERALUS VS HONDA OF SANTA MONICA ET AL

Here, on March 13, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel “presented counsel for Defendant with a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss the case with prejudice, including the provision that ‘plaintiff will not apply for future employment with defendants or any of their corporate affiliates.’” (Motion at p. 2.) The Defendants agreed to the Stipulation and the parties agreed to enter into a Settlement Agreement, but the Settlement Agreement was never signed. (Motion at p. 2.) On May 20, 2019, the arbitrator, Hon.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ORANGE COUNTY GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

Continued to 8/21/2020 on the court’s own motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

HORIZON TIRE, INC. VS JESUS JASSO

Beginning in April 2016, Defendant stopped paying for all shipments of tires, running up an outstanding balance of $49,833.56. On March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-100 for: Breach of Written Contract Breach of Written Contract Common Counts Account Stated Open Book Account On June 19, 2020, Defendant’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for August 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

XIUFANG WANG, ET AL. VS VALU MART CO., ET AL.

The parties’ requests for sanctions in connection with this motion are denied. Loe’s motion to quash subpoena for production of business records from the DMV is denied. Loe and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $875 to Buy Low, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order. The Court notes that Buy Low has filed 2 motions to compel the depositions of these same entities, which is set for September 11, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAUL ESPARZA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ET AL.

(Motion at p. 2.) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS – SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION GM argues that Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action for fraud is barred by the statute of limitations. (Motion at p. 8.) Statute of Limitations There is a three-year statute of limitations for “[a]n action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

CELL-CRETE CORPORATION VS. SCOTT TAYLOR

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against Throop is denied. B. Motion for Sanctions against Vivit and Throop Plaintiff moves for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Vivit for the intentional destruction of evidence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CYRUS ETEMAD VS VERJ SARKISSIAN, ET AL.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendant Sarkissian shall provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

XIANGHUA ZHEING VS ANTHONY JOSEPH CURATO

No reason need be given for the existence of one of these circumstances and attestation that one of these reasons existed is sufficient to obtain relief, unless the trial court finds that the dismissal did not occur because of these reasons. (Graham v. Beers (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1656, 1660.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s counsel declares he failed to calendar the February 26, 2020 hearing date. (Yoo Decl., ¶ 5.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

TRACEY CALLAHAN MOLNAR VS THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE CO OF

Courts may grant a motion to amend as late as the time of trial and even postpone the trial if necessary for the furtherance of justice. (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 960, 965.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTION CORP. VS QUYEN DOAN

(“Moncada/Escobar”) entered into a written Shopping Center Lease Agreement with AMCA I, LLC for lease of the Premises commencing on March 1, 2014 and continuing for a term of 7 years, 8 months, up to and including October 31, 2020, for a total base monthly rent of the amount of $4,152.00 for the first year, and increased yearly by 3% thereafter, plus 10% for pro rata share of the center expenses (“NNN charges”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MATTER OF DAVID BUSHNELL TRUST

Nature of Proceedings: Status Hearing re Sale of Properties Appearance required for court update.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

ESTATE OF DOUGLAS W HUNT

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Probate of Will & Letters Testamentary

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  « 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 gather your results.