What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Resources for Motion for New Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion for New Trial

76-100 of 10000 results

MIGUEL ANGEL HUERTA VS CURT VAN SCHULTZ, ET AL.

The 3/4/20 trial date remained set. On 3/4/20, the matter was called for trial, but because there were no appearances, the court dismissed the action pursuant to CCP § 581(b). On 8/10/20, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside dismissal. Plaintiff asserts the dismissal was the result of Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

BARNETT VS JURUPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Counsel for Defendant sent an email a week before filing the Demurrer. (Nazli, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) This is insufficient. The moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the opposing party to determine whether the parties can reach an agreement that would resolve the objections raised in the motion. The moving party must identify the specific causes of action or defenses that it believes are subject to motion and provide the opposing party with legal authorities for the claimed defects.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DEMURRER FOR UNCERTAINTY TO ANSWER

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will only be sustained where the responding party cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him. Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 616. Demurrers for uncertainty are to be overruled when addressed to inconsequential matters, the facts are within the knowledge or ascertainable in discovery, or not dispositive of one or more causes of action..

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VS FIGUEROA

Grant motion and sign proposed order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ALIONSO ANGEL VS DANA ZIENERT-KIND, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a motion (the “Motion”) to compel the deposition of the Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) for WHCC as well as responses to requests for production of documents. The Motion also seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,535.00 against WHCC and its attorneys of record. DISCUSSION Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2) states that a motion brought under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

602 NORTH GRAND AVENUE L.P. VS FITNESS ALLIANCE, LLC

There is no tentative from the court at this time....

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

PEREZ VS. ALIBASHA

Motion for Sanctions Moving Party: Plaintiffs Peter Perez, Julia Palacio-Perez, and Roger Tanaka Responding Party: Defendant Imad Alibasha Ruling: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7.) Plaintiffs failed to comply with the statutory 21-day safe harbor period. Plaintiffs served notice of the motion by email on 10/07/2020. The safe harbor period was extended by two court days due to electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

DIANE COATES GRIGSBY VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD, ET AL.

M of the TORRANCE Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court. Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

NELSON VS DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

The present motion is a motion for protective order brought by plaintiff against the counsel for deponents Brian Oaks and Donald Oaks. Plaintiff argues counsel for the deponents has asserted improper speaking objections and has coached the witness at the deposition of Donald Oaks, requiring the suspension of both depositions and the filing of the present motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

LEON VS WAL-MART

The unnoticed motion for approval of the proposed PAGA settlement is once again denied. Any further application shall be brought in the form of a noticed motion and shall fully comply with the CMO. Analysis: The declaration of plaintiff’s counsel does not comply with sections E.6. and E.7. of the case management order. The proposed release does not comply with section E.10. of the CMO. The proposed order does not fully comply with § E.9.b. of the CMO.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

POST VS BRANDINI ENTERPRISES INC

Motion granted with 30 days leave to amend as to 7th cause of action. Plaintiff has not pled fraud nor malice or oppression with required specificity. While the underlying claims may be generally alleged, specific factual allegations are required to support a punitive claim. (Smith v. Sup.Ct. (Bucher)) (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041–1042; (Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp) (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643.) As for other claims, matter moot in light of ruling on demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MANSOUR VS BUMBLE TRADING UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR

The motion is denied without prejudice. The status conference is continued to April 7, 2021. ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

HILT VS PREMIER CONNECTIONS

ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

COASTLINE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC VS. OPTIMUM BIO LAB, INC

Motion for Terminating Sanctions Moving Party: Plaintiffs Coastline Medical Management, LLC; Healthquest Esoterics, Inc.; Healthquest Clinical Laboratory, Inc.; Healthquest Laboratories, Inc.; and Healthquest Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

A trial court is well within its discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery for failure to include a separate statement in compliance with the California Rules of Court. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WILLIAM CARLYLE V. CAL FIRE, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 prevents trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s theories].) day to file claims against Garcia was either June 26, 2019, or June 26, 2020 (depending on the claim made).

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

NATALIE CAGULADA, ET AL. VS COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY,, ET AL.

Defendants' Demurrer and Motion to Strike and Cross-Defendant's Demurrer and Motion to Strike are CONTINUED TO February 18, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. Moving parties to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

RAMEZAN ABBAS-LARKI ET AL VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff brought a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The Honorable Judge Rico denied the motion writing, “Here, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the parties had the same mutual intention regarding whether the deposit was to be returned to Plaintiff. Because there was a defect in the formation of the settlement contract, for the purposes of this motion, settlement has not occurred.” (9/20/19 Ruling, p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LILLIAN PIEDRA VS INTERSTATE VAPE INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Hearing on the Demurrer set for 01/19/2021 and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

CARTER VS SELMAN CHEVROLET COMPANY NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TRANSFERRING THE ACTION TO THE PROPER

This motion could have been avoided by either GM looking through their records to determine whether there was a basis for venue in Riverside County, but failed to do so. Plaintiff could have avoided this motion by responding to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts or by properly stating in the Complaint the basis for venue in this county.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

VIVA CAPITAL FUNDING LLC VS REVIVE MEDICAL LLC

The unopposed motion of the judgment creditor is denied. Analysis: The moving party failed to give notice of the motion to the judgment debtors 16 court days plus two calendar days prior to the hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MARGARITA BARRIOS VS JOSE MERCADO, ET AL.

Defendants further request monetary sanctions for bringing the instant motion. However, because the motion is denied, the court finds monetary sanctions unwarranted. Based on the foregoing, Defendants motion to dismiss the complaint for violation of discovery orders is denied. This denial is without prejudice to any subsequent motion for evidentiary or issue sanctions Defendants may seek if Plaintiff fails to provide proper discovery responses. Defendants are ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ELENA VICTORIA VS G AND E HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

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.) Counsel’s motion complies with all of the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, in that Counsel provided a notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel; order granting attorney’s motion to be relieved as counsel; and declaration in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NEW MILLENNIUM BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INC. VS MYMAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

(See Department 34 Trial Orders, part VII(B).) The Court orders the parties contact Department 34’s judicial assistant, Reyna Navarro, at (213) 633-0154 to schedule this informal discovery conference. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: The Court understands that there is a fourth identical discovery motion set for hearing on 1/28/2021; the motion relates to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, which is comprised of 83 requests for production of documents. (RFPD Motion, p. 2:14-18.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSEPH AND KATHLEEN ANDERSON VS HUNTER BROOKE INC ET AL

Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement TENTATIVE RULING G.E. Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted. Defendant G.E. Plumbing, Inc. (“GEP”) moves for an order finding that the settlement between Plaintiff Joseph Anderson and Defendant GEP was made in good faith pursuant to CCP §§ 877 and 877.6.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  « 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.