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.)
Plaintiff Zennea Foster’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or for New Trial, is DENIED.
May 01, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
On December 10, 2019, Jung filed the instant Motion for New Trial (the “Motion”). The Motion consists of a single page, does not cite any authority, and requests that the court “re-open” the case to allow Jung to present her defense. (Mot., p. 1.) The Court notes that filing a Motion for New Trial is not the proper procedure.
Jan 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Because of Plaintiff’s lack of evidentiary support at the time of trial, the Court will not set aside the judgment and damages awarded as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. RULING: 1. Deny motion for new trial. 2. Deny motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Jun 22, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
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;
May 16, 2019
El Dorado County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Leave to Amend First Amended Comp./Motion Continue Trial & MSC Dates Motion of Plaintiff for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; Motion of Defendant to Continue Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference Dates RULING Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a SAC is granted. Defendant’s motion for a brief continuance of the MSC and trial dates is granted as set forth herein.
Jul 19, 2016
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Motion for New Trial is therefore DENIED.
Jun 14, 2018
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Now before the Court is Conservatee’s motion for a new trial on Michalle’s petition for appointment of a temporary conservator of the Estate of Diane McCoy. A motion for new trial requests the trial court to reexamine one or more issues of fact or law after a trial and decision by the judge or jury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657.)
Dec 09, 2020
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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.
Apr 18, 2018
Merced County, CA
However, the Court finds the motion for new trial was previously denied by operation of law. To the extent the Court retains authority to rule on the merits of the motion for new trial, the motion is DENIED. The right to move for a new trial is statutory, must be pursued in the manner provided for by statute, and is entirely within the control of the legislature. (Lancel v. Postlethwaite (1916) 172 Cal. 326, 329.)
Jul 15, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Apr 25, 2019
Complex
Writ
San Diego County, CA
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.
Jul 30, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
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.
Oct 23, 2015
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Sacramento County, CA
Defendants’ motion for new trial. Motion denied. This motion is untimely. A party intending to move for a new trial must file with the clerk and serve on each adverse party a notice of intention to move for a new trial after the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment (CCP § 659(a)(1); see Collins v Sutter Mem.
Dec 14, 2020
Orange County, CA
.: 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.
Jun 05, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Oct 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
May 09, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
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]).
Oct 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Mar 01, 2018
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
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.
Mar 01, 2018
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
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.
Dec 03, 2009
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Sacramento County, CA
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.
Mar 22, 2017
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
When “a judgment is reversed and the action remanded for a new trial,” the plaintiff has three years within which to bring the action to trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.320, subd. (a)(3).) This rule applies when the judgment was entered pursuant to a motion for summary judgment. (Southern Pacific Co. v. Seaboard Mills (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d 97, 104.)
Feb 23, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
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.]
Feb 06, 2017
Ventura County, CA
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.)
Nov 30, 2011
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Sacramento County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.