What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion for New Trial

126-150 of 10000 results

MATTER OF HUMAN POTENTIAL FOUNDATION

That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field – BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ).

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

GUARDIANSHIP OF CARPENTER

Evelyn Carpenter shall be personally present for this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ESTATE OF JACK P. BLAKEMORE

If the documents curing these deficiencies are not processed by noon on September 18, 2020, it is recommended that the matter be continued to October 6, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. unless the party appears and requests a different date, or submits a request for a different continuance date prior to the hearing. (Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).) If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MATTER OF HUMAN POTENTIAL FOUNDATION

The specified issues to be briefed and filed by October 15, 2020 are as follows: Can a California Superior Court exercise jurisdiction over New York State trustees, when the trust was executed in New York, the current trustees reside in New York, and all acts of the trustees were executed in New York, save acts specifically conducted by agents acting on the trustees’ behalf in this state to sell real property located in this state?

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

PETITION OF HAE CHO

Note: Decree will be available for pick up at the hearing or after the hearing in Dept. 30. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petitioner Candice Mayo must appear at the hearing with photo identification CANDICE ATHENA MAYO FILED ON 09/03/19 BY GEORGE MARTINEZ PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including mediation Note: Verified Opposition filed by Michael Martinez on 10/11/2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: THE DENNIS PAPPAS LIVING TRUST

Proposed Order The Court is still waiting for: A. Court Investigator’s Report B. Report of court-appointed counsel Oliver Greenwood Note: Letters of Temporary Conservatorship expire 4/20/2021 PUBLIC GUARDIAN STEVEN P RETTIG WILLIAM MUNOZ-RUGGIRELLO OLIVER ALEXANDER GREENWOOD

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF ROSS ALLEN NORGAARD

RE: PET’N FOR LTRS OF ADMIN W/ AUTHORIZATION IAEA FILED ON 03/12/20 BY SHARON REDMAN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 10 -- Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required ROSS ALLEN NORGAARD SHARON REDMAN JOEL A. HARRIS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, NO WILL, IAEA

FILED ON 01/13/20 BY VALERIE PEABODY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE This petition is apparently superseded by Line 16.A above PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Bond in the amount of $200,000 DONALD E BARKLEY JERRY MARTIN BROWN MARTIN T. GON...

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO COMPEL ACCT; BREACH TRUST; RTN TRST PROP

Proof of mailing Notice of Petition to Administer Estate with new hearing date. PrC § 1202 4. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify date of will and codicil to be admitted for Probate. A copy of the 7-12-05 Will is attached to petition; however, petition requests admission of 6-12-89 will and 6-2-98 codicil, which are revoked in 7-12-05 Will. 5. Waivers of Bond by Heir or Beneficiary on mandatory Judicial Council Form DE-142 by all trust beneficiaries or bond will be fixed at $800,000.00.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR HOWARD LEE RUSSELL

Response and Objection filed by Susan Klein 7/28/2020 and set for hearing 10/8/2020 JOHN F KLEIN TRACY S REGLI JOSHUA L BECKER JEFFREY S GALVIN JULIE COLBY DANIEL B NEWBOLD SUSAN J. KLEIN G JEFF COONS THE ARTHUR SBECKER REVOCABLE L FILED ON 09/24/19 BY ROBERT M MELLO, MICHAEL A MELLO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -See also Line #11- Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order Note: Response filed by Shirley Magana 11-19-19.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AMENDED FIRST AND FNL ACCT & RPT, FOR FEES, FINAL DIST

Proof of mailing petition and notice to personal representative for Estate of Timothy Martinez 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR PROBATE OF COPY OF WILL, LETTERS TEST, IAEA

FILED ON 01/03/20 BY FR PAULSON MUNDANMANI PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Original will lodged with clerk (legal process). PR § 8200. If Original Will cannot be located, will also need: 1. Proposed order with copy of Will attached, if lost will is to be admitted FR PAULSON MUNDA...

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST SETTING BOND;

AUTH INVESTMENT FILED ON 03/13/20 BY SAMANTHA SMITHWICK PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Bond presented for filing before Order will be signed. SAMANTHA SMITHWICK KEVIN URBATSCH THE ZACHARY SHUKLA SPECIAL NEE PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GARRET ADELMAN, ET AL. VS JEROME ADELMAN, ET AL.

Adelman, et al MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION (CCP § 437c) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Garret Adelman and Justin Adelman’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WALTER D SOBERANIS SOLORZANO VS ELIZABETH KOUTURES ET AL

R of the Santa Monica Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case 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.Plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

OTILIA MEZA VS MICHELLE FRANCO, ET AL.

The court awards Defendant one hour for preparing each form motion to compel and one hour for appearing at the hearing- but awards this time only once- all at the requested rate of $143.75, for a total attorney’s fees award of $575. While Defendant requests a $94 CourtCall fee, the court notes the cost to appear remotely through LACourtConnect is $15, and thus, awards Defendant the $15 fee. Further, Defendant is awarded the $60 motion filing fee for each of the three motions for a total of $195 in costs.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

DELARA NASSERI VS CAROLINE ZEYTUNTSYAN

.: 19STCV35171 Hearing Date: September 22, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Caroline Zeytuntsyan (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Delara Nasseri (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiff via email on March 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

EDEN DEVELOPMENT & CONSULTING INC VS MELISSA SANFORD 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.) The Court notes that trial is set in this action for January 19, 2021. Accordingly, no prejudice will result in granting this motion. The Court notes that counsel’s Proposed Order fails to specify the hearing dates for Defendants’ Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses scheduled for October 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation for Settlement and Order of Dismissal (“Stipulation”). (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. A.) On the same date, the Court dismissed the action and retained jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ Stipulation. (Motion, Reese Decl., Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WEI SI VS ALAN MENG TANG, ET AL.

As Defendant is a governmental entity, it cannot be liable for common law negligent entrustment. Therefore, the motion to strike is granted. Conclusion and Order Defendant’s motion to strike references to negligent entrustment is granted without leave to amend. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: September 22, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

FRANCISCA TORRES VS MIGUEL CARILLO, JR., ET AL.

The Court declines to make any ruling concerning the cross-complaint, as Correa’s notice of motion does not seek judgment on the cross-complaint. (Min. Order 6/24/20.) The court then set the summary judgment motion directed at the cross-complaint for hearing on 9/22/20. Opposition to the motion for summary judgment on the cross-complaint was due on or before 9/9/20. To date, the Court has not received any opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

TANYA CRUZ VS SKATELAND ENTERPRISES INC

Skateland Enterprises: 9-18-2020: A notice of settlement was filed on 9-16-2020 such that the court assumes the motions set for 9-22-2020 are moot and taken off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JK LAW FIRM APC VS JI WON LEE, ET AL.

The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TIMOTHY FRANKLIN V. KENNETH FRANKLIN

Timothy Franklin and Kirsal Kay Franklin (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Central Coast Investments, LLC filed this action for breach of contract—specific performance and declaratory relief against Cinthia Franklin, Kenneth Franklin (collectively “Defendants”), and Bank of America, N.A., on February 21, 2020. Plaintiffs moved this Court for an order quashing four third-party Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records served by Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS EDWARD GARRICK

“Section 664.6 was enacted to provide a summary procedure for specifically enforcing a settlement contract without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 809.) In deciding motions made under Section 664.6, judges “must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Kohn v. Jaymar-Ruby (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1533.) B.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  « 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.