What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Rulings on Motion for New Trial

76-100 of 10000 results

REAL PROPERTIES NETWORK, ET AL. V. D’ALESSIO, ET AL.

., § 657, subd. (7) A court may grant a new trial based on an error in law that occurred at the trial and that was objected to by the party moving for a new trial, and the error was prejudicial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. (7).) Plaintiffs have not shown any error in law that occurred at the trial that would require a new trial. Accordingly, the motion for new trial is denied. Defendants shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

TAMARA N HARRIS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Further, nothing in the record or the minutes of the Court support the granting of a new trial under causes five through seven. As such, Plaintiff has failed to show that she is entitled to a new trial under CCP § 657. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is denied. Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion to set aside judgment is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is also denied.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ELMAS V. USA GASOLINE, ET AL.

Defendants have not shown any basis for new trial. Based upon this finding, the court denies the motion for new trial and conditional reduction. (Civ. Code, §§ 657, 662.5, subd. (b).) Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

TAX CREDIT GROUP VS ADVANCED IMAGING CENTER INC ET AL

Otherwise, the plaintiff may seek prejudgment interest through the statutory procedure afforded by the motion for new trial. (Id. at p. 831 [“requests for prejudgment interest under section 3287 by a successful plaintiff must be made by way of motion prior to entry of judgment, or the request must be made in the form of a motion for new trial no later than the time allowed for filing such a motion”].)

  • Hearing

ALLHOUSE-CONSERVATORSHIP

Respondents’ Motion for New Trial Respondents Jim and Deborah Stevenson and Abel Mares and Amanda Holden-Mares move for a new trial under CCP 657 (5) and (6). The court DENIES the motion for the reasons set forth below and in the Opposition filed by Petitioners Patti L. Gerhard and Kathy Gardner. A. Burden of Proof A party may move to set aside a verdict or judgment, and to hold a new trial for any cause materially affecting his or her substantial rights. (CCP 657.)

  • Hearing

NORTH EAST MEDICAL SERVICES VS. LAW OFFICES OF ANSEL D. KINNEY

Ntc Of Hearing For Their Mtn For New Trial Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, February 20, 2014, line 8. DEFENDANTs ANSEL KINNEY and THOMAS LALANNE Motion For New Trial CONTINUED to February 25, 2014. This motion was continued so Defendants could submit courtesy copies of motion for new trial. Copies were not received so Court again continues matter to February 25, 2014.

  • Hearing

JAMES R. LINDSEY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LINDSEY FAMILY TRUST, ET AL V. CONTEH, ET AL.

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial is denied. As a preliminary matter, the court declines to consider Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial as default judgment has not been set aside. While a defaulted defendant may move for a new trial (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385–386), the court is unaware of any authority that permits a defaulted defendant to file an opposition to a motion for new trial.

  • Hearing

MARY ANNE MELNIK ET AL VS DAVID GILLON ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Tax Costs; Motion New Trial Motion for new trial Motion to tax costs Rulings: 1. The motion for a new trial is denied. 2. The motion to tax costs is granted. The Court will strike from the defendant’s memorandum of costs the following: Item No. 4. Deposition costs in the sum of $9,837.50 ($2,650 for plaintiffs’ experts and $7,187.50 for treating physicians) because the fees are expert witness costs and are not authorized by CCP section 1033.5. Item No. 8b.

  • Hearing

R&T INVESTMENTS INC VS. KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP USA

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs' motion for new trial is denied. A motion for new trial is entirely statutory. It can be granted only on one of the seven grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 657. In their notice of motion, plaintiffs set forth two statutory grounds: (1) Insufficient evidence to justify the verdict or verdict against law (Code Civ. Proc. § 657(6) and (2) Error in law (Code Civ. Proc. § 657(7).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EVA CAPERON VS. CHEVRON CORPORATION

Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial The motion for new trial is denied. A motion for new trial is entirely statutory. It may be granted only on one of the seven grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 657. In her notice of intent to move for new trial, plaintiff moves the court for an order granting new trial on seven grounds.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CARMICHAEL CANTERBURY VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. MICHAEL JOSEPH

TENTATIVE RULING: Cross-complainant's Motion for New Trial Cross-complainant's motion for new trial is denied. A motion for new trial is entirely statutory. It can be granted only on one of the seven grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 657. In its notice of motion, cross-complainant sets forth the following statutory grounds: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of adverse counsel and the court (Code Civ. Proc. § 657(1) and Error in law (Code Civ. Proc. § 657(7).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

30-13-629369 Allhouse-CU-JR-CJC

Respondents’ Motion for New Trial Respondents Jim and Deborah Stevenson and Abel Mares and Amanda Holden-Mares move for a new trial under CCP 657 (5) and (6). The court DENIES the motion for the reasons set forth below and in the Opposition filed by Petitioners Patti L. Gerhard and Kathy Gardner. A. Burden of Proof A party may move to set aside a verdict or judgment, and to hold a new trial for any cause materially affecting his or her substantial rights. (CCP 657.)

  • Hearing

DAVID DEASON VS. KAREN BREITMAIER

*** The following constitutes the Court's tentative ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and Motion to Tax Costs scheduled for hearing on Friday, March 21, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DAVID DEASON VS. KAREN BREITMAIER

*** The following constitutes the Court's tentative ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and Motion to Tax Costs scheduled for hearing on Friday, March 21, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BRIDGEPOINT CONSTRUCTION ETC VS VISTA OCEANO ETC ET AL

Accordingly, the court will grant Vista Oceano and Newton’s motion for a trial continuance. The trial date is ordered continued approximately 120 days, from March 11, 2016 to July 15, 2016, with all related discovery and motion deadlines to coincide with the new trial date.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ARNO P KUIGOUA VS CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS HEALTH CARE SERVICE

As Plaintiff did not timely serve notice of his intent to move for a new trial to Defendant, the motion must be denied. For these reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

  • Hearing

JUDY ALEXANDER ET AL VS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF LONG BEACH ET

The Court has considered all grounds and arguments made in the motion, and finds there is no basis for overturning the judgment in whole or in part. The motion is denied. PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiffs have moved for new trial as to the judgment in favor of MCA on a number of grounds. The Court has considered all grounds and arguments made in the motion, and finds there is no basis for granting a new trial in whole or in part. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

EVENSEN V. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiff has unnecessarily delayed bringing this motion until the eve of trial, that Plaintiff provides no explanation for this long delay, and that Defendant will be prejudiced if the motion is granted because it will necessarily require a continuance of the March 23, 2018 trial date and will require Defendant to incur additional costs through a new round of pleadings, further discovery, and further trial preparation. Plaintiff has not filed a reply in support of its motion.

  • Hearing

MESERVA V. SATTERFIELD

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Different Judgment. (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. (3) Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or Tax Costs. (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs. Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Different Judgment.

  • Hearing

ZEEBA COMPANY INC. VS CHRISTOPHER CLIFFORD, ET AL.

The trial is continued to August 23, 2021 at 9:30 am. The final status conference is continued to August 9, 2021 at 9:00 am. All discovery and motion cut-off dates will follow the new trial date. The new trial date is a firm trial date.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT VS. PETER HOANG

TENTATIVE RULING On March 16, 2016, this Court heard arguments on Defendants Nhen Hoang and Fay Lee (together, "Defendants") Motion for a New Trial and Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict ("JNOV"). Plaintiff Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD") opposed the motions.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COOPER CRANE & RIGGING INC/WEST COAST WELDING INC VS. PAVEX-MYERS

Motion for New Trial Defendant's motion for new trial is denied. A motion for new trial is entirely statutory. It can be granted only on one of the seven grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 657. In its notice of intent to move for new trial, defendant set forth two statutory grounds: (1) Excessive damages (Code Civ. Proc. § 657(5); and (2) Insufficient evidence to justify the verdict or verdict against law (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GAINQUICK LLC VS. JTH HOLDINGS, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in the lead case (2016-00874017) is granted. The Second Amended Complaint (attached as Exh. B to the motion) is deemed filed this date. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint in the consolidated case (2016-00881410) is granted. The Fourth Amended Complaint (attached as Exh. B to the motion) is deemed filed this date. The 9-24-18 trial date is vacated. A Case Management Conference is set for May 3, 2018.

  • Hearing

FANNIE HENDERSON VS CAPRI URBAN BALDWIN LLC ET AL

Here, the order continuing the trial from April 10, 2018 to August 16, 2018 stated, “that all discovery and motion cutoff dates will not be based upon [the] new trial date.” The instant motion is currently set for hearing on June 7, 2018—past the operative discovery and motion cutoff dates. In Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTIAN DANIEL VALDIVIA VS. MARIA BRISCOE

The jury also found, however, that Christian Valdivia was 75% responsible for both his and his sister's damages. Plaintiffs now ask this court to change the Jury's verdict to find that Christian Valdivia was only 50% at fault for the collision. Motion for New Trial In ruling on a motion for new trial, the court independently reweighs the evidence. (Valdez v. Diffenbaugti (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 494, 512.)

  • Hearing

  « 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.