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.)
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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..
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Grant motion and sign proposed order.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
There is no tentative from the court at this time....
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
Jan 19, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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).
Jan 19, 2021
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jan 19, 2021
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jan 19, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles 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.) 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.
Jan 19, 2021
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.)
Jan 19, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.