Richard Chamberlain v. Jason Chamberlain

On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging a single cause of action for defamation.

On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative FAC against Defendant asserting causes of action for: (1) defamation per se; (2) defamation (general); (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) false light.

On February 23, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication to the FAC. Plaintiff filed written opposition. The motion was heard and submitted on May 8, 2026. Thereafter, this court filed an order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed notice of his intention to move for a new trial, now the present motion before the court.1 Defendant filed written opposition. Plaintiff filed reply papers.

Self-Represented Litigants

Self-represented litigants “are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Super. Ct. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543; see also Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270 [“self-represented litigants are generally entitled to no special treatment”].) “[M]ere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment.”

1 Plaintiff filed his initial memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for new trial on June 11, 2026. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a “revised supplemental” memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion for new trial on June 15, 2026.

(Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.) Otherwise, “exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Id. at p. 985.)

Motion for New Trial

Plaintiff moves for a new trial on the following grounds: (1) irregularity in the proceedings (Code Civ. Proc., § 657(1)); (2) accident or surprise (Code Civ. Proc., § 657(3)); (3) decision is against the law (Code Civ. Proc., § 657(6).); and (4) triable issues of material fact exist.2

Legal Standard

“A motion for summary judgment is to be granted ‘if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ [Citation.]” (Huckey v. City of Temecula (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1103.)

“ ‘A motion for new trial is appropriate following an order granting summary judgment.’ [Citation.] ‘The new trial motion may seek reversal of the summary judgment on “any available statutory ground for a new trial.” ’ [Citation.]” (Braganza v. Albertson’s LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 159.)

“The authority of a trial court in this state to grant a new trial is established and circumscribed by statute. [Citation.] [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 657 sets out seven grounds for such a motion: (1) ‘Irregularity in the proceedings’; (2) ‘Misconduct of the jury’; (3) ‘Accident or surprise’; (4) ‘Newly discovered evidence’; (5) ‘Excessive or inadequate damages’; (6) ‘Insufficiency of the evidence’; and (7) ‘Error in law.’ ” (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624, 633.)

“This right to move for a new trial is a creature of statute and the procedure prescribed by law must be closely followed. [Citations.] Strict construction of the statute ensures protection of the litigant’s rights. [Citation.] Accordingly, the motion for new trial can only be granted on a ground specified in the notice of intention to move for a new trial. [Citations.]” (Wagner v. Singleton (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 69, 72.) When the trial court “grants a motion for new trial, ‘the court shall specify the ground or grounds upon which it is granted and the court’s reason or reasons for granting the new trial upon each ground stated.’ [Citations.]” (Johnson v. Monsanto Co. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 434, 461.)

Irregularity in the Proceedings

“A new trial may be granted where there is an ‘[i]rregularity in the proceedings.’ [Citation.] An ‘irregularity in the proceedings’ is a catchall phrase referring to any act that (1) violates the right of a party to a fair trial and (2) which a party ‘cannot fully present by exceptions taken during the progress of the trial, and which must therefore appear by affidavits.’ [Citations.]” (Montoya v. Barragan (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1229-1230.)

2 In reply, Plaintiff clarified that he is not seeking a new trial on the ground of “decision against law” as it was not raised in his notice of intent. Instead, this point is incorporated with his discussion under “irregularity in the proceedings.”

Plaintiff contends there was an irregularity in the proceedings as Defendant obstructed discovery while the motion for summary judgment was pending. To counter this obstruction, Plaintiff filed discovery motions that were scheduled for hearing sometime after the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appears to suggest that, had his discovery motions been heard prior to the motion for summary judgment, he would have been able to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to his defamation lawsuit.

The court however is not persuaded as Plaintiff’s remedy was to seek a request to continue the motion for summary judgment under the guidelines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h) to allow his discovery motions to be heard and to obtain necessary discovery before the court could rule on Defendant’s dispositive motion. But, as stated in the court’s summary judgment order, Plaintiff did not make such request in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment or articulate how any such discovery would raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the motion.

The court thus finds there is no perceived irregularity in the proceedings to justify granting a motion for new trial.

Accident or Surprise

The terms “accident” and “surprise,” as used in Code of Civil Procedure, section 657, are given substantially the same meaning. (Kauffman v. De Mutiis (1948) 31 Cal.2d 429, 432; South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation Dist. v. Johnson (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 388, 406 (South Santa Clara Valley).) A court may grant a new trial based on accident or surprise that the moving party could not have guarded against by exercising ordinary prudence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657(3).) As one California appellate court explained:

“ ‘Surprise’ as a ground for a new trial denotes some condition or a situation in which a party to an action is unexpectedly placed to his detriment. The condition or situation must have been such that ordinary prudence on the part of the person claiming surprise could not have guarded against and prevented it. Such party must not have been negligent in the circumstances. [Citations.]” (Wade v. De Bernardi (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 967, 971.)

“The granting or denial of a motion for new trial on the ground of surprise is largely a matter of discretion.” (South Santa Clara Valley, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at p. 407.)

Plaintiff argues the court’s order granting summary judgment constituted “surprise” as it instantly mooted his pending discovery motions. This argument however is unavailing as Plaintiff had an opportunity to guard against this outcome by either submitting admissible evidence in support of his opposition to the motion for summary judgment or seeking a continuance of that motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h). Plaintiff did neither and thus failed to exercise ordinary prudence that could have guarded against the granting of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Nor can it be said that the mooting of the discovery motions was “unexpected” as that is the logical consequence of a trial court order granting a motion for summary judgment and thus disposing of the lawsuit. (See Ahern v. Dillenback (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 36, 41 [purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation by avoiding needless trials].) Therefore, the court declines to exercise its discretion to grant a motion for new trial based on accident or surprise.

Triable Issues of Material Fact

“The new trial motion may seek reversal of the summary judgment on the ground that there are triable issues of fact.” (Doe v. United Air Lines, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1504- 1505.)

As a final point, Plaintiff asserts that triable issues of fact remain to be decided in the case. In support, Plaintiff relies on a “Corrected Separate Statement” that disputes material facts raised by Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (See Plaintiff’s Decl. at Ex. C.) But, by Plaintiff’s own admission, the “supposed” triable issues of fact rely on evidence (i.e., the suppressed native records and admissions) that has not been produced in discovery and is not before the court for purposes of this motion. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

And evidence that constitutes a triable issue of material fact cannot be derived from speculation, guesswork or mere possibilities. (See Doe v. Salesian Society (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 474, 481 [party opposing summary judgment cannot establish triable issue with evidence based on speculation, guesswork or mere possibilities]; see also Pipitone v. Williams (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1453 [“A triable issue of fact can only be created by a conflict of evidence, not speculation or conjecture.”].)

Consequently, the motion for new trial is DENIED. Having denied the motion, the court declines to consider Plaintiff’s omnibus motion, filed on July 10, 2026, for restoration and scheduling of discovery matters.

Disposition

The motion for new trial is DENIED.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -