Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2019-00011137-CU-IC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Insurance Coverage Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00011137-CU-IC-CTL STEWART VS USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial is DENIED. The Court notes plaintiff did not calendar this motion, but relied on the clerk to calendar pursuant to CCP 661. While under no obligation to do so under CCP 661, the Court sets this matter for oral argument as implicitly requested by plaintiff in his filings.

Pursuant to CCP 657, plaintiff moves for a New Trial. However, there never was a trial of this matter.

Based on the Order of July 21, 2023 at the Trial Court, the Court dismissed the case prior to trial with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to participate in the Trial Readiness Conference and the Advanced Trial Review procedures. The case was dismissed based solely upon Mr. Stewart's voluntary conduct in failing to appear for trial despite the Court's clear admonition to Mr. Stewart at the July 7, 2023 Trial Readiness Conference that should he fail to appear at Trial call, the case would be dismissed. (ROA 465, 476.) Mr. Stewart did not file any opposition to USAA GIC's Motion for Summary Adjudication or appear for oral argument. (Id.; ROA 465, 470.) Following Stewart's failure to appear, USAA GIC notified Stewart in writing of the Court's admonition that should he fail to appear at the July 21, 2023 Trial call, the case would be dismissed with prejudice. (Ross Decl. at Exhibit 3; ROA 476.) At the Trial Call on July 21, 2023, the Court set forth a detailed basis on the record for the dismissal.

Mr. Stewart has failed to set forth any irregularity in the proceedings or misconduct by the Court which could support the reinstitution of this case for trial under California Code of Civil Procedure §657. The basis for the motion is that the Court committed judicial misconduct or 'overt acts' by denying the Peremptory challenge as well as multiple disqualification motions, ADA Accommodation Requests and a motion to continue trial. Disagreement with these rulings is an insufficient basis for a 'new trial.' These previous rulings have been fully litigated and, in most cases, reviewed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court strikes the Amended Motion for New Trial filed on or about August 17, 2023 as improperly filed.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017348  36