What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Rulings on Motion for New Trial

176-200 of 10000 results

XOCHITL SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS. JAZZLYN AYALA, ET AL.

Motion for New Trial Defendant Jazzlyn Rae Ayala’s motion for new trial on each of four specified grounds or, in the alternative, for remittitur is DENIED. As for defendant’s motion for new trial on the ground of juror misconduct, the motion is based on alleged concealed bias on voir dire. The Court finds the proffered evidence is insufficient to establish juror misconduct. It is undisputed that the subject juror is an acquaintance of Mr. Bixby’s paralegal.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2018

CALIBER MOTORS, INC. VS. O'KAIN

The Defendants’ motion seeks to set aside the judgment in this action and conduct a new trial. The court construes this motion as one seeking a new trial. A motion for new trial may be made under the provisions of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 656 to 663.2 and 914 in any California superior court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 655). A new trial is 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). Defendants’ motion is denied as untimely.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CHRISTINA SIEGEL V. ANDREW J. PISKER

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Set Aside & Vacate Judgment; Motion New Trial Motion for New Trial Motion to Set Aside Judgment Motion to Tax costs Rulings 1. The Siegels’ objection to the Declaration of David M. Grokenberger in Support of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Andrew Pisker’s Motion for New Trial and Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment is GRANTED. 2. The motions for new trial and to set aside the judgment are DENIED. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2017

DICKERSON VS. PERRY & PAPENHAUSEN INC [E-FILE]

In light of the similarity in the dispositive issue on Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants William Dickerson and Paradiso in Terra, LLC's motion for new trial/partial new trial and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court issues one ruling as to both motions. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants William Dickerson and Paradiso in Terra, LLC's motion for new trial/partial new trial is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is denied. The court finds Ayyad v.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LA JOLLA BENEFITS ASSOCIATION LLC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Because the Motion for New Trial is the proper remedy and has been granted, the Motion to Vacate the Judgment is denied. Counsel should be prepared to discuss a briefing schedule and hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LA JOLLA BENEFITS ASSOCIATION LLC VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Because the Motion for New Trial is the proper remedy and has been granted, the Motion to Vacate the Judgment is denied. Counsel should be prepared to discuss a briefing schedule and hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO VS. KRISHNA LIVING TRUST

Case No. 34-2012-00116503 RULING RE: "NOTICE FOR MOTION; MOTION TO MODIFY THE FINAL STATEMENT; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/REHEARING/NEW TRIAL/ AND REQUEST FOR STAY" Defendant's motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below. The hearing date is VACATED. The Court, not the moving party, selects the date and time for a hearing on a motion for new trial. See Code of Civil Procedure section 661.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2013

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HAHN V. LOUGHEED

motion is not entitled to bring a motion for reconsideration, because it is impossible for the party to provide a satisfactory explanation for failure to produce the new law, facts, or circumstances at an earlier time; the law presented in the motion for reconsideration is not new and all facts were in existence at the time the motion for trial preference was filed; plaintiff did not mislead or deceive defendant; the filing of a cross- complaint is not a new fact or circumstance warranting reconsideration;

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

GARCIA V. GONZALES, ET AL.

Plaintiff has not shown any basis for new trial. Based upon this finding, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion for new trial and conditional additur. (Civ. Code, §§ 657, 662.5, subd. (b).) Defendant Syria Gonzalez shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

KRISTIN HARRIS VS. VICTOR MANUEL OLIVA

Generally, in considering such a motion, the court is guided by these principles: "Upon a motion for new trial grounded on insufficiency of the evidence because the damages are inadequate, the court should first determine whether the damages are clearly inadequate and, if so, whether the case would be a proper one for granting a motion for new trial limited to damages. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

LAUREN CAZDEN VS JEREMY JAMES ET AL

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AS TO ESPINOZA The principal statutory authority for new trial motions is CCP § 657. “The right to a new trial is purely statutory, and a motion for a new trial can be granted only on one of the grounds enumerated in the statute.” (Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162, 166.) The grounds enumerated in CCP §657 include: 1.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PAUL ARON VS WIB HOLDING, LLC, ET AL.,

Following Defendants’ appeal of the new trial ruling, the Court of Appeal reversed the new trial order and affirmed the original January 25, 2016 judgment for Defendant. Merits Defendants now move for an order entering judgment in accordance with the court of appeal opinion. Specifically, Defendants request that the court enter judgment finding that the new trial order was reversed, granting the anti-SLAPP motion and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. (Mot., Ex. 2 [Proposed Judgment]).

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2018

BOWSER VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Therefore, the Court denies the motion for new trial.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

TERRY V MEINZER VS. WAI CHONG

As is set forth below, the Motion for New Trial on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence is granted, the JNOV is denied, and the Motion to Tax Costs is moot. Motion for New Trial - Standard In ruling on a motion for new trial, the court independently reweighs the evidence. (Valdez v. Diffenbaugh (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 494, 512.) A new trial should be granted if the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MONICA ROBLES VS NICOLAS GUERRA PAYAN ET AL

All discovery and motion cut off dates will follow the new trial date. Conclusion and Order Defendant’s motion to continue these matters is granted based upon good cause shown. The trial is continued to November 29, 2018 at 8:30 am, and the FSC is continued to November 15, 2018 at 10:00 am. All discovery and motion cut off dates will follow the new trial date.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HUA VS HANNA

On a motion for new trial, the trial court is charged with reviewing the record and weighing the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether the "jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision." Code of Civil Procedure § 657. "A new trial motion allows a judge to disbelieve witnesses, reweigh evidence and draw reasonable inferences contrary to that of the jury . . . ." Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner's Assn. v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 743, 751. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AFFINITO VS. AFFINITO

On October 11, 2018, faced with these new claims, defendant submitted an ex parte application for a continuance of the summary adjudication hearing and trial. Plaintiffs opposed defendant’s ex parte application, asserting that defendant must defend the summary adjudication motion and the imminent trial without the benefit of discovery concerning the new claims. Plaintiffs’ procedural gamesmanship in asserting the new claims is manifest.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

MARIA PEREZ VS CAROLYN JEAN VOLKOFF

Trial was initially set for September 25, 2017. On September 1, 2017, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the trial to January 23, 2018 and ordered that discovery and motion cut-off dates be based on the new trial date. On October 6, 2017, the Court continued the trial from January 23, 2018 to June 13, 2018. The October 6, 2017 minute order did not specify that discovery was extended with the continuance of the trial date.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUIS FRANCISCO TAPIAS VS. MAXIM CRANE WORKS LP

Cross-defendants Scandia Family Fun Centers, Inc. and Steve Baddley's ("Cross-Defendants") motion to continue trial is DENIED. Cross-Defendants argue that good cause exists to continue the February 1, 2016 trial, due to the fact that they recently retained new counsel in August 2015, who need additional time to learn the case and prepare for trial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2015

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CAROLINE KAUFMAN ET AL VS VICTORIA NATKIN GOODMAN

.: BC637578 Hearing Date: June 5, 2018 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Defendant’s MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Defendant Victoria Natkin Goodman (“Defendant”) seeks to continue the final status conference, trial, and all trial related dates in this action. The FSC is currently set for June 6, 2018, and trial is set for June 18, 2018. This motion was properly served on Plaintiff’s counsel via overnight UPS courier. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT BRENNAN, ET AL. V. NATHAN GARDNER, ET AL.

Thus, Plaintiff’s notice of intention to move for a new trial was not timely filed [see footnote below] The time to file a motion for a new trial is jurisdictional. (Palmer v. GTE California, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1265, 1271-1272.) As Plaintiff’s motion was untimely, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on it. (Douglas v. Janis (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 931, 936.) // // // Footnotes: 1 Plaintiff’s motion erroneously states that judgment was entered on March 19, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2018

CHOI VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Plaintiff Steve Choi's Motion for New Trial and/or New Judgment is denied. The authority for a motion for new trial is contained in CCP §§ 655‑ 663.2. The grounds are exclusively statutory and the court has no inherent power to grant a new trial. (Diamond v Sup. Ct. (1922) 189 Cal. 732.) The statutory procedures are mandatory and must be followed exactly. Any order granting a new trial where the party did not strictly comply with the statutory scheme is void as in excess of the court's jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KIMBERLY LARSON VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.ETAL

Department 45 Superior Court of California 720 Ninth Street, 6th Floor Judy Holzer Hersher, Judge Alicia Cruz, Clerk Plaintiff'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 her notice of intent to move for new trial, Plaintiff has set forth twelve issues involving all seven grounds of section 657.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2011

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CLASSIC AUTO REPAIR, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS TRUSTEE OF THE ZION IDA FAMILY TRUST, DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2003 ZION IDA

Excessive Attorneys’ Fees Judgment In deciding a motion for new trial on the grounds of an excessive judgment award, the Court has the responsibility to reweigh the evidence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

JONATHAN COLEMAN VS. HENRY LEE JENNINGS

Tentative Ruling The Court rules as follows on plaintiff's motion for new trial. 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. Here, plaintiff moves for new trial on the grounds of inadequate damages (CCP section 657(5). In ruling on the merits of a motion for new trial, the Court starts with the basic premise of Article VI section 13 of the Constitution.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « 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.