Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party
James DI CESARE
(Subscribe to View)
July 19, 2019
Orange County, CA
Nov 22, 2019
Apr 05, 2019
Bradley Robert Schamel Vs. Ussa Federal Savings Bank
Interinsurance Exchange Of The Automobile Club Vs. Hill
Labor Commissioner For The State Of California Vs. Catholic Charities Of Orange County, Inc.
City Of La Habra Vs Johnson
Petition Of Lee
Peninsula Retail Partners, Llc Vs. Sage Investco, Llc
Nutrawise Corporation Vs. Cinco Air Charter, Llc
Riedman Vs Giovanna Enterprixes, Llc
Petition Of Futurecare Medical Associates Ipa, Inc.
Forward Financing, Llc Vs. On & Off Marketing, Inc.
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. Hast (1965) 62 Cal.2d 598, 600 (court may take judicial notice of its own records in assessing motion for new trial); Nichols v. Hast (1965) 62 Cal.2d 598, 600 (judicial notice is proper of the minute orders); Gulf Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 422, 438 (judicial notice taken of the dates of court filings and dates of events recorded therein).) The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a new trial. A motion seeking a new trial is subject to strict time limits. (Cal. Code Civil Proced. § 659, 660.) The time limits are “jurisdictional”........
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.