| Motion for New Trial ?
DENIED Moving party/petitioner?s Notice of Intent and Motion for a New Trial lists five separate grounds under CCP 657 as bases for new trial, however the attached Points & Authorities cite only CCP 657(1), which authorizes new trials based on:???Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial.? Petitioner discusses the following instances in which she contends there were ?appearances of judicial bias and impartiality?: 1.??????Terminating?Petitioner’s?spousal?support?as?a?sanction?withoutproper?notice?and opportunity?to?respond?(and?despite?a?long-term?marriage) 2.??????Denial?of?Petitioner’s?multiple?continuance?requests?to?obtaincounsel?and?to?seek fees?for?counsel 3.??????Denial?of?Petitioner’s?attempts?to?submit?oral?and?documentaryevidence, including?the?testimony?of?a?police?officer?properlysubpoenaed to?court; 4.??????Denial?of?Petitioner’s?request?for?a?Statement?of?Decision; 5.??????Ordering?Petitioner?to?pay?the?fees?of?the court’s?Evidence?Code730?expert?(Dr. Galindo) despite the fact that it was opposing counsel that arranged for Dr. Galindo to appear in court; 6.??????Finding the Petitioner had breached her fiduciary responsibilities despite evidence to the contrary and insufficient evidence in support; and further excusing Respondent?s similar failure to disclose the existence of a retirement account; 7.??????Denying Petitioner?s repeated requests for Minor?s Counsel and to have the children (both over 14 yrs) speak directly with the court. Petitioner did not provide any record of any irregularity in the proceedings in support of the motion for new trial.? There is no Request for Judicial Notice and the transcript of the hearings have not been lodged. Petitioner has failed to sufficiently establish any credible instance of an irregularity in the proceedings or any indication of bias or lack of impartiality. The Decision on Submitted Trial Issues only addressed trial on the remaining issues which were heard during the period between 6/28/13 through 3/3/14. As to items 1, 3, and 7 listed above these issues were addressed in prior proceedings/trials which are not part of the proceedings covered by the Notice of Entry of Judgment filed July 10, 2014.? Petitioner?s Motion for New Trial is based on the 5/22/14 ?Decision on Submitted Trial Issues? which specifically set forth the numerous specific trial dates.? Petitioner cannot attempt to seek new trial on issues?already determined in previously held hearings. As to item 2 above, any denial of a request for continuance is within the trial court?s discretion.? The trial on the reserved issues was scheduled to commence in June, 2013; approximately six continuance were granted and the matter concluded approximately nine months later in March 2014.? The Petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice. As to item 3 above, regarding the testimony of a police officer, petitioner fails to establish what the proposed testimony would have been or how it was relevant. As to item 4 above, Petitioner failed to properly request a statement of decision therefore the denial was proper. This Court further notes that it was the ?oral? request for statement of decision which was denied. As to item 5 above, again as to petitioner?s reference to the Order that she pay a portion of Dr. Galindo?s fees, was addressed in a 7/23/09 Stipulation and again addressed at the bifurcated child custody trial which is not part of the current trial dates which only covered the remaining reserved issue and therefore improper to address in this motion. As to item 6, Petitioner fails to show any bias or lack of impartiality re: the finding that she breached her fiduciary duties re: the pension. The motion for new trial by Petitioner is Denied.? Moving party?s declaration fails to support her grounds of irregularity in the proceedings, CCP 657(1). |
