What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion for New Trial

9976-10000 of 10000 results

ASHLEY PARTAIN, ET AL. VS PARDEEP KUMAR, ET AL.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ASHLEY PARTAIN, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. PARDEEP KUMAR, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: 19STCV23766 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. June 26, 2020 REVISED Plaintiffs, Ashley Partain and Joan Beshears filed this action against Defendants, Pardeep Kumar, Parmijit Kaur, and Samarth Kumar for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

LACY R VS GERMAN MEJIA ET AL

The materials sought contain relevant information which is necessary for Plaintiff to prosecute this action. As such, Mejia’s right to privacy is outweighed for the need for disclosure. Further, Plaintiff has indicated a willingness to sign any necessary protective order for the production of the documents and items sought in the subject requests. (See Motion p.8:10-12).

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

ANTONIO MARQUEZ VS GUILLERMO MAYORGA

Pursuant to the Oral Agreement, the parties purchased the Home for $325,000. Marquez made the down payment, and Anjelica and Guillermo obtained a mortgage loan of $325,000 from Option One Mortgage. Anjelica’s and Guillermo’s names were recorded on the grant deed and the deed of trust for the mortgage loan. In May 2006, to memorialize the intent of the Oral Agreement in part, the parties executed a written agreement (Written Agreement) to add Marquez to the Home’s grant deed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CERDA VS. RODRIGUEZ

The Motion for Reconsideration by Plaintiff Michael Cerda is DENIED without prejudice. The instant action was dismissed on December 5, 2019. (ROA No. 46.) Until the dismissal is set aside, the court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

EDWARD MOKHTARIAN ET AL VS RICHARD SAPERSTEIN ET AL

The Court will formally take the matters under submission this date and issue final rulings on the remaining motions for summary judgment and motions for summary adjudication. To allow the parties the opportunity to consider the rulings and discuss moving forward with the case, on its own motion, the Court CONTINUES the Trial Setting Conference to July 17, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. No appearances are required on June 26, 2020. Counsel for Defendants to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LAUREN JOSEPHSON VS CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS ET AL

Notably, the trial date in this case has been vacated, and there is a trial setting conference on calendar contemporaneously with the hearing on these motions. Conclusion The motion to compel the deposition in California is denied. The motion to compel the IME in California is denied without prejudice. Defendants’ motion for relief from waiver of objections is granted. No sanctions are imposed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

PANOPUS PLC VS PHILOUS, INC.

Aussie also does not allege where and by what means Hong and Eum represented that they would pay for, care for, and return the cone crusher. (FAC ¶ 23; Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73, citing Hills Trans. Co. v. Southwest (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 707.) The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED. III. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONVERSION With respect to the fourth cause of action for Conversion, the Court finds that Aussie did not engage in sham pleading to avoid demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHAEL STANG VS ACCESS SERVICES ET AL

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 states: “(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHANNES ZUURVEEN ET AL VS LA COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICE

(See Hefczyc, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at 542 (noting that trial court must “consider whether the Chargemaster rates represent the reasonable value of [the hospital’s] services” in determining whether chargemaster rates are unconscionable).) The County’s motion for summary adjudication of its first cause of action is denied. B.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

NANCY DAVIS VS JOAN WHITE, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s attorney declares that he inadvertently failed to schedule the matter for trial, and as a result, failed to appear on December 3, 2019. (Motion, Steiner Decl., ¶4.) Based on the timely request to vacate supported by an attorney affidavit of fault, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal is GRANTED. THE DISMISSAL ENTERED ON DECEMBER 3, 2019 IS HEREBY VACATED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

ROBERTS VS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER

ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL AGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to exhibits A, B, and C. With respect to exhibit A, the court only takes judicial notice of the existence of the document and not its contents. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to exhibits 1, 2, and 3. With respect to exhibit 1, the court only takes judicial notice of the existence of the document and not its contents.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SAN RAFAEL HILLCREST, LLC, ET AL VS. SAN RAFAEL MANOR, INC., ET AL

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DEFT] SAN RAFAEL MANOR, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 2) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [PLTF] SAN RAFAEL COMMERCIAL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC [PLTF] SAN RAFAEL HILLCREST, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC 3) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CROSS MOTION) [PLTF] SAN RAFAEL COMMERCIAL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC [PLTF] SAN RAFAEL HILLCREST, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC RULING This matter is continued to July 17, 2020 at 1:30 pm. in Department E‘ Parties must comply with Marin County

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CHENG YANG VS JTNA ENTERPRISES, LLC

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-50 for: Breach of Contract False Promise Intentional Misrepresentation Concealment Common Count—Money Had and Received Unjust Enrichment Declaratory Relief On January 7, 2020, Defendant’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for June 26, 2020. Discussion Defendant’s demurrer is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR. Defendant’s default was entered on January 7, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

AARON CARR VS. HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT AGENCY INC

The Court issues the following tentative ruling in advance of the compliance hearing set for July 1, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40. The Court has received the Amended Declaration of Nick Castro Regarding Disbursement, dated June 23, 2020 (Castro Declaration).

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RIKA CORPORATION VS. JOKAKE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ET AL

Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, in which the Second District granted a petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate an order denying a motion to stay the action pending the conclusion of arbitration proceedings and to issue a new order granting the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS, EDGAR W. LIHN

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT — OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION [PLTF] WELLS FARGO BANK, N,A. RULlNG The motion for summary judgment by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, NA. (Plaintiff) is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subds, (c) and (p)(1).) The court finds Plaintiff has met its burden showing no triable issues of material fact exist as to either of the alleged causes of action Evidentiary Objections The court overrules the objections to the Declaration of Carol A.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SOCORRO R. DE LEYVA, ET AL. VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Hyundai argues that the statute of limitations for the Second Cause of Action, Implied Warranty, is one year because new consumer goods have a one-year statute of limitations pursuant to Civil Code section 1791. (Motion at p. 10.) Hyundai is incorrect. California courts have agreed upon a four-year statute of limitations for actions for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, including implied warranties. (Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1306-1307.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JANE DOE 1 VS. SHMUEL KORNFELD, ETC.

If a Request for Dismissal for the remaining defendants is received from plaintiff and entered by the Court prior thereto, the matter will come off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

EL DORADO SENIOR CARE V. THOMSEN

The motion for reconsideration is denied. TENTATIVE RULING # 8: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2020 IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247.), UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

ASATUR GALADJIAN, ET AL. VS INTER VALLEY ESCROW, INC., ET AL.

With respect to Lopez, the motion as to items 1 and 4 listed in the notice of motion is GRANTED. With respect to Inter Valley, the motion as to items 4 and 5 listed in the notice of motion is GRANTED. With respect to Stewart Title, the motion as to item 9 in the notice of motion is GRANTED. No leave to amend is given. C. ATTORNEY FEES ALLEGATIONS All moving defendants seek to strike allegations regarding and prayers for attorney fees.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ENRIQUE QUINTANA VS ANA L QUINTANA

For the first and seventh causes of action, the statute of limitations for an action on any written contract is four years. (Code of Civ. Proc., ¶ 337.) For the third cause of action, the statute of limitations for an action for fraud is three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d).) For the fourth cause of action, the statute of limitations for conversion is three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

PLAZA FREEWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS. SAGHAFI

The tentative ruling is to continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Forth Scope of Injunction Following Granting of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment to July 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of a Receiver is off calendar at the moving party’s request. Plaintiff has not provided this court with all the relevant documents that articulate the scope of the agreed improvements.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

PERLA MAGENO VS HODAD'S FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

For all of the foregoing reasons, CCP 425.50 and Government Code section 70616.5 do not apply to plaintiff’s complaint here. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is DENIED. Ten days to Answer.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JOSEPH GARRETT VS. CAITLIN MAYNARD

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION - FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT [DEFT] CAITLIN MAYNARD [DEFT] NORTH BEACH FILMS, INC. RULING Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Relief from Default is GRANTED. The law favors resolution of cases on their merits, and because it does, any doubts about whether Code of Civil Procedure section 473 relief should be granted must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. (Fasuyi v. Permatex.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JACOB MACIAS VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES [CCP §1033.5(c)(5), Civil Code § 1794] Date: 6/26/20 (2:00 PM) Case: Jacob Macias v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (19GDCV00003) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Jacob Macias’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « first    1 ... 395 396 397 398 399 400

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.