What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion for New Trial

176-200 of 10000 results

4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, VS JESSE PIMENTEL, ET AL.

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (CCP § 403.040(a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP § 403.040(b).) In Walker v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THOMAS NORIEGA V. DAVID SPURR

Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 14:138.20.) Here, the class was not certified prior to the settlement. The settlement agreement and proposed notice to class members must be filed with the motion, and the proposed order must be lodged with the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3:769(c); Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 14:138.21.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO. V. GONZALES

Plaintiff further argues that Defendants were aware the insureds would likely make a claim for uninsured losses once contacted for deposition, the depositions took a long time to schedule, and that the statute of limitations is not an issue for these claims. Plaintiff finally argues that the new causes of action would not entail any significant new discovery, the presentation of different or additional facts at trial, or otherwise prejudice Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MERLE TAYLOR, ET AL. V. ROBERT HOUSTON, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Seal Court Records Merle Taylor, et al., v. Robert Houston, Jr., et al., #16CV03526, Judge Sterne Hearing Date: September 21, 2020 Matter: Motion to Seal Court Records Attorneys: For Plaintiffs: Lacy L. Taylor (Law Offices of John Thyne III) For Defendant: Kristi M.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ANDRE NEUMANN V. GISELA . NEUMANN, ET AL.

(The form declaration also states counsel met and conferred “at least five days before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings (if I am filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings).” This is not a motion for judgment on the pleadings.) Andre’s counsel states: “On multiple occasions throughout this litigation I have met and conferred with Defense counsel regarding the substantive deficiencies of the claims raised in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CITY OF GOLETA V. DONALD FRIEDMAN, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Specially Set Trial; CMC This is a matter of calendar management. The motion seeks (a) to have the trial on the right to take challenges heard within 150 days, (b) to defer setting trial on the compensation issues until after the right to take trial or, alternatively, setting it at least 180 days after the right to take trial, and (c) limiting the evidence admissible in the right to take trial to the administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MATTER OF GEORGE A. MATSUKAS TRUST

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 21, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTATE OF ROBERT JOSEPH LAHR

Petitioner must submit a new proposed order reflecting the findings and requests made pursuant to section 12251. The Proposed Order does not reflect issues germane to Probate Code section 12251, and contains findings all specific to granting final distribution, which is not appropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTATE OF WILLIAM STANLEY LEWELLYN

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 21, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTATE OF ROBERT JOSEPH LAHR

Petitioner must submit a new proposed order reflecting the findings and requests made pursuant to section 12251.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTATE OF WILLIAM STANLEY LEWELLYN

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Letters of Administration No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTATE OF VICTOR SOLIS CAMARGO

Nature of Proceedings: Review of Receipt and Acknowledgement of Money Into Blocked Account In support of the Receipt and Acknowledgement of Money Into Blocked Account, Petitioner must file deposit receipts and current account statements for each minor from the bank where the accounts for the minors are located, showing the money was deposited. This will also alleviate the need to provide an accounting in the guardianship case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

PARISO VS VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Tentative ruling for September 21, 2020 on Petition for Order Relieving Petitioner A.P. ("Petitioner"), By and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem Rebecca Pariso, From Provisions of Gov. Code Section 945.4 or Otherwise Accepting Her Claim as Timely The petition for Order Relieving Petitioner A.P. ("Petitioner"), By and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem Rebecca Pariso, From Provisions of Gov. Code Section 945.4 or Otherwise Accepting Her Claim as Timely is GRANTED pursuant to Gov. Code section 946.6(c)(2).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

DENA MARSHALL VS. MARTIN JASSO ZAVALA

Code, §§ 452-453 [providing that, when the parties do not request judicial notice, a trial court has the authority to take judicial notice of any matter subject to permissive judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452]; see also Evid. Code, § 452(c).) Defendant's motion to strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

KELLY VS. RENEW SPINAL CARE INC

For general information regarding Judge DeNoce and his courtroom rules and procedures, please visit: http://www.denoce.com _____________________________________________ The court's tentative ruling is as follows: The court intends to deny the motion to be relieved as counsel without prejudice. There is insufficient notice by mail to the client who is out of state (10 days must be added for mailing out state – CCP 1005).

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

RANCHO NUEVO VS. SANTA ROSA

The Court intends to rule as follows; To Grant Defendant Santa Rosa Produce, LLC's ("Santa Rosa") motion to quash Plaintiff Rancho Nuevo Harvesting, Inc.'s ("Rancho") service of the Summons and Complaint on Santa Rosa, on the ground that Plaintiff fails to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that this Court has either general or specific personal jurisdiction over Santa Rosa.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

DUTCH ENTERPRISES VS. ABDUL-AZIM

Defendant Amica’s motion for summary judgment is denied. A case management conference has already been scheduled for October 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY RESPONSES FILED BY TRANQUILITY, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: in light of the Court’s ruling on the companion demurrer, Defendant’s motion to compel is moot, See Line 4 below.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA VS. BEASLEY

COURT TRIAL - SHORT (1 HOUR) CAUSE / 0 DAY(S) * TENTATIVE RULING: * This trial has been vacated because case has been settled.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 2nd Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY TRANQUILITY, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * In light of the Court’s ruling on the companion demurrer, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is moot. See Line 4 below.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS. OF ANNIE BERNSTINE

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF 2ND ACCT & RPT, TERMINATE FILED ON 07/09/20 BY JOHN DOUGLAS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Original statements from the residential care facility PrC§ 2620(c)(5) The Court is still waiting for: A. Court Investigator’s Report ANNIE BERNSTINE RONALD K MULLIN C.C. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPT COUNTY COUNSEL JOHN DOUGLAS TRACY S REGLI PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NORMA IFRAZ VS. GILMER PACAHUAL

After a jury trial which resulted in judgment for the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding those facts did not warrant imposing vicarious liability on the employer for the accident. (Id. at 395.) The Court has also reviewed the recent decision in Savaikie v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. MILLER

HEARING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY ANGELO MILLER * TENTATIVE RULING: * This case is a “collections” case involving Plaintiff’s claim for damages of $22,332.50 for past due amounts on advances of credit. On June 25, 2020 this court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment believing at the time that the Defendant had not filed an opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WELLS FARGO VS. TAIWAN WALKER

HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. * TENTATIVE RULING: * This is a limited jurisdiction “collections” case involving claimed damages of $5,438.68. On March 12, 2020 the defendant failed to appear for a scheduled CMC and his answer (a General Denial that contained no factual allegations or asserted defenses) was ordered stricken. On June 17, 2020 the Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. No opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS OF HERBERT BERNARD BASKIN

RE: PET’N FOR ORDER APPROVING C'TOR & ATTY FEES FILED ON 06/11/20 BY DEBBY LYNNE BASKIN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify amount of fees requested by conservator. Petition at page 4, Line 21 requests $170,924.62. Prayer on page 7, Line 21 requests $142,437.18 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

  « 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.