Michelle Williams Court
(Subscribe to View)
March 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Mortgage Foreclosure (General Jurisdiction)
CAPITAL ONE BANK - Defendant/Respondent
DOES 1 TO 50 - Defendant/Respondent
EFFIONG ANIEMA - Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
ELEY HUNTER R. ESQ. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
HOWARD LYDELL - Defendant/Respondent
HOWARD SHERIE - Defendant/Respondent
UMOH ROBERT M. - Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
Apr 30, 2019
Feb 02, 2018
Amjad Alamas, Et Al. Vs Uber Technologies, Inc., Et Al.
Rafael David Miranda Vs Andres Contreras Et Al
Stuart L. Gili-Ross Vs United Financial Casualty Company
Rose Taylor Vs Calvin Broadus, Jr
Rami Alkalay Vs Thuyann Ngo Et Al
Beatriz Sandoval, Et Al. Vs Ramandeep Singh, Et Al.
Valeria Denise Bustamontes Vs Avent Group, Inc., A Delaware Corporation
Ana Rosa Rivera Et Al Vs Osterkamp Trucking Inc Et Al
BC670377 ANIEMA EFFIONG, ET AL. VS CAPITAL ONE BANK, ET AL. Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Relief TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied. Plaintiffs move for a new trial on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, that the decision was against the law, and that there was an error warranting a new trial. The court sustained Capital One’s demurrer without leave to amend on February 2, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. A motion for new trial filed before entry of judgment is premature and void. (Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal. App. 3d 147, 152; Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 187, 195.) Although the demurrer was granted, no judgment has entered against Plaintiff, and Capital One has not been dismissed from the action. The motion is premature and void. Plaintiffs have not establish........
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.