What is a Motion for New Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion for New Trial

Rulings on Motion for New Trial

1-25 of 10000 results

GEORG LINGENBRINK VS. STEPHEN C GAMES

The statute's requirements are mandatory; the Court's power to order a new trial is based upon the timely and proper filing of a motion for new trial, and the Court does not have jurisdiction to order a new trial except as provided in those sections. Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America (1985) 38 Cal.3d 892, 899. The Court's denial of Grande's motion for a new trial was a ruling on the motion. Under the Code, if a moving party for JNOV also moves for a new trial, both motions must be decided at the same time.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ROBERT WOOTEN VS THE CITY OF STOCKTON ET AL.

Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was filed on August 12, 2019 and the court sua sponte set it for hearing on September 20, 2019. Discussion I. Plaintiff Robert Wooten’s Motion For A New Trial Should Not Be Granted. When a new trial is granted, on all or part of the issues, the court shall specify the ground or grounds upon which it is granted and the court's reason or reasons for granting the new trial upon each ground stated. Cal. Civ. Pro § 657.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

WOODEN, BRENDA V. DANIELS, PRISCILLA

Plaintiff’s motion for new trial is denied. There are significant deficiencies that plague plaintiff’s motion. Initially, this is plaintiff’s second motion for new trial. Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Objection to Trial Court’s Statement of Decision and Motion for New Trial” on October 25, 2018. This document also included a request to vacate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RODRIQUEZ, MIRANDA VS CITY OF TURLOCK

a) Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial - DENIED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict – DENIED. (a) The motion is untimely. A motion for new trial requires filing of Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial within 15 days of Notice of Entry of Judgment. Here, Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed and mailed on March 8, 2019. The Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial was filed March 25, 2019, which is 17 days after Notice of Entry of Judgment.

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2019

D/K MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. VS BERGER

(b) A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict shall be made within the period specified by Section 659 for the filing and service of a notice of intention to move for a new trial . . . . . . the hearing on the motion shall be set in the same manner as the hearing on a motion for new trial under Section 660. The making of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict shall not extend the time within which a party may file and serve notice of intention to move for a new trial.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2016

BLOOMFIELD LAW GROUP, INC, VS. ELISABETH THIERIOT

In particular, the Fairmont Court held that “in the case of a mistrial, order granting a new trial, or remand for a new trial after reversal of a judgment on appeal, the last date for completing discovery is 15 days before the date initially set for the new trial of the action.” (Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4th 245, 247 [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

HARRIS, TAMARA N VS LAW OFFICES OF GILBERT D SIGALA

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for new trial, requesting the court to vacate its judgment for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Legal Standard The grounds for a motion for new trial are entirely statutory. Therefore, a motion for new trial must be based on the statutory grounds set forth in CCP § 657. (Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 162, 166.) CCP § 657 states that a motion for new trial may be granted based on the following causes: 1.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAUREN GOODMILLER VS. ANGELA VIDAL

Cowham – 2010-00089771 – Motion for New Trial - Tentative Ruling The Court has received and reviewed plaintiff, Adam Barker's motion for new trial, supporting declarations, and memorandum of points and authorities, defendant Bruce Douglas' memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion for a new trial and the supporting declaration and plaintiff's reply. Plaintiff's motion for new trial and/or additur is denied. A motion for new trial is entirely statutory.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY K KENDALL VS STEVE FISK. ET AL.

In light of the foregoing, Defendants' motion for a new trial or for remitter is denied.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2011

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIMES VS. WILLIAM LYON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Motion for New Trial Plaintiff Kimes is renewing a Motion for New Trial. A similar motion was denied by the Court on or about April 26, 2019. Plaintiff’s renewed Motion for New trial is Denied. Judicial notice has been taken of the records of the case (see Evidence Code § 452(d); Dillard v. McKnight (1949) 34 Cal.2d 209, 218 (“a trial court is bound to take judicial notice of its own records in the same action”); Nichols v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

GABRIEL GREEN VS SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE ET AL.

RULING: Deny Plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2018

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

DISCUSSION A motion for new trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 656, et seq., asks the trial court to reexamine one or more issues of fact or law by challenging a trial court judgment for judicial error. (Carney v. Simmonds (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84, 90.) “A motion for a new trial is ‘a new statutory proceeding, collateral to the original proceeding’ and constitutes a new action brought to set aside the judgment.” (Spruce v. Wellman (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 158, 161 (quoting Frowden v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

KAREN DRAPER ET AL VS RH PETERSON CO

Based on the foregoing, the court would treat this motion for new trial similarly to a motion for new trial challenging a granted summary judgment motion, and therefore, the motions to dismiss may be reversed if there is newly discovered evidence. Thus, the applicable grounds for new trial under these circumstances are newly discovered evidence (CCP § 657(4)) and surprise (CCP § 657(3)). Plaintiffs’ motion brings the court’s attention to two new facts.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSE MANUEL DULANTO VS KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS ET AL

Plaintiff’s Motion for a new trial is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

BUTA BUDDHISM RESEARCH CENTER VS JING-SHIN CHI

BBRC’s Motion for New Trial BBRC now moves for a new trial based on the court’s December 30, 2016 ruling on the motion for summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

DUDEN, STEVEN VS. ENDO, CLIFFORD

Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial – DENIED. The procedural requirements for a motion for new trial are mandatory and, in some cases, jurisdictional. As the motion for a new trial finds both its source and its limitations in the statutes, the procedural steps prescribed by law are mandatory and must be strictly followed. (Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 118; Pacific Trends Lamp & Lighting Products, Inc. v. J. White Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1135.)

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

WEN TZU DAVIS VS PEARL OF THE EAST

Plaintiffs Davis and Lin move for a new trial pursuant to CCP 659(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2017

WEN TZU DAVIS VS PEARL OF THE EAST

Plaintiffs Davis and Lin move for a new trial pursuant to CCP 659(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2017

STRENGTH FARM LLC VS THE HERON FAMILY TRUST ET AL

A trial court’s determination on a motion for new trial, as to declarations containing conflicting facts, constitutes a determination of those facts in favor of the party prevailing on the motion. Young v. Brunicardi (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1344, 1350-1351. Defendants’ motion for new trial is DENIED on all grounds.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2017

KIMES VS. WILLIAM LYON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiff Kimes presents a third Motion for New Trial. The Court Denies the Motion as an improper renewed request under CCP §1008; and even it were otherwise, the Motion for New Trial would be denied even as to its merits. Judicial notice is taken of the records of the case, including the Judgment entered here in November of 2003, the Plaintiff’s’ prior Motions for New Trial, filed in 2019, as well as the rulings made upon the motions.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

MICHAEL HAZARD VS BURBANK AUTO PARTS ET AL

DISCUSSION: Standard of Review – New Trial – Code of Civil Procedure §657 sets forth the relief available on a motion for new trial, as well as the causes upon which such a motion may be made. “[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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

AGUILERA VS. FARLEY

(Fannin, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at 754 (“[Carney] deals with the type of judgments to which a motion for new trial may be directed under the statutes applying to motions for new trial. (§ 655 et seq.) Carney does not hold that where a judgment of dismissal is entered in any case for any reason [i.e., under a different statute, section 583], it will support new trial proceedings.”) Having resolved the issue whether a motion for a new trial is a proper motion here, the court denies that motion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

FABIAN RONISKY VS PROVIDENCE SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER ET A

Motion for New Trial " '[T]he trial court is bound by the rule of California Constitution, article VI, section 13, that prejudicial error is the basis for a new trial, and there is no discretion to grant a new trial for harmless error. [Citation.] . . . The grant of a new trial for harmless error violates the constitutional provision and wastes judicial time and resources to no purpose. [P] Accordingly, the order granting a new trial is valid only if prejudicial error occurred at the trial.' [Citation.]"

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA ELENA CERVANTES VS WAL MART SUPERCENTER

for a new trial.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SILVER ATUSERI VS TRAVEL GUARD CHARTIS

Atuseri moves for a new trial on the basis that she should be allowed to present evidence of the payment of the medical bills at issue. Atuseri states that her previous motions to the court for a continuance of the trial to present this evidence were denied. (Motion for New Trial at p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2016

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.