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. Plaintiff has not presented grounds to permit further consideration of his requests for a new trial. The present Motion asks for the same basic relief as the prior two motions. But there are no new proper facts, law, or circumstances, that would support the Court’s further consideration of the matter. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(b), (a).) Section “1008 clearly limit[s] the parties' ability to file repetitive motions.” (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1104.)
The statutes “are ‘designed to conserve the court's resou
Hearing Date
November 22, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
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. Plaintiff has not presented grounds to permit further consideration of his requests for a new trial. The present Motion asks for the same basic relief as the prior two motions. But there are no new proper facts, law, or circumstances, that would support the Court’s further consideration of the matter. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(b), (a).) Section “1008 clearly limit[s] the parties' ability to file repetitive motions.” (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1104.)
The statutes “are ‘designed to conserve the court's resou