What is a Case Management Statement in Healthcare?

Useful Resources for Case Management Statement in Healthcare

Rulings on Case Management Statement in Healthcare

176-195 of 195 results

SETH ROGERS V. ITY LABS CORP., ET AL.

Prior to the hearing on the motion to stay, counsel for Hess, Cong, and iTy executed a joint case management statement that was filed with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

CARLOS ESCOBAR V. ORION SECURITY PATROL, INC., ET AL.

Prior to the filing of Orion’s untimely opposition papers, defendant’s counsel briefly addressed Orion’s failure to comply with the Court’s order in a case management statement filed on November 21. Counsel stated that “Defendant fully intends to respond to all court orders” but “labor-intensive fact gathering … remains in order to satisfy Plaintiff’s request to see each employee’s check stub and time sheet for four plus years” and “Defendant will need time and resources to accomplish this.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2018

DANIEL VESPI VS. GALAXY TACO INC [E-FILE]

After the parties met and conferred with each other and submitted a joint case management statement setting forth their respective positions (ROA 189), the court met with counsel at the February 16, 2018 case management conference. The parties presented alternative versions of their proposed CMO, and the court heard argument regarding the parties' areas of disagreement. The Court took the matter under submission, and thereafter issued its own CMO.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RAUL ACEVES, ET AL. V. LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

However, in their first joint case management statement filed on March 22, 2019, the parties stated that arbitration was “[n]ot applicable here” and agreed to phase discovery so that the first phase would be “limited to whether evidence exists to support class action requirements regarding Plaintiffs’ claims.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA NA VS DANIELLE ROBERTS

Also on January 9, Roberts filed her case management statement for the January 29 conference. The case management statement noted her intent to file this motion, and requested that trial be set after August 2014 to give defendant time to prepare for trial because of defendant�s hiring of new counsel. On January 10, 2014, Citibank served, and on January 13 filed, a Request to Set Trial. On January 29, 2014, at the case management conference, trial was set for June 4, 2014.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2014

PERCIAVALLE VS BRUCE

Notably, in her case management statement, defendant denied liability. See ROA #18. Further, she refused to make an unqualified admission to RFA # 5, which asked for an admission of liability. Requests Nos. 37 and 38 do not constitute a serious invasion of defendant's privacy. Defendant is not being asked to divulge the content of any conversations. Given defendant's admission that she was using her phone shortly before the accident, her cell use is relevant to whether she was distracted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

AMIR MOSTAFAVI VS ERIC KINGSLEY ET AL

Plaintiff demanded a jury trial in his complaint and on his case management statement. (Mostafavi Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7 & Exs. A, D.) On September 11, 2019, the Court lifted the stay and set a non-jury trial for January 22, 2020. Plaintiff contends that this was “merely an unintentional and inadvertent overlook by the Court,” which the Court should now correct. (Motion at pp. 7-8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEI-MING LIOU VS JOLIN YI LIM TSAI

He attests that the Joint Case Management Statement he received on or about 9/12/16 on behalf of Defendants Wang and Jo “contained a statement about Defendant Jolin’s intent to file a complaint for indemnity to Defendant AMERIPRISE and Defendant LI-LIN HSU, if her Motion to Quash is denied.” (O’Connell Decl., ¶ 14). Such a statement, however, would not constitute a general appearance.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CARLOS GALVEZ VS UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC ET AL

Request for Judicial Notice In support of the reply, Defendants request judicial notice of (1) the case management statement from this case; (2) the proofs of service as to Raymond Cruz and George Garcia in this action; (3) the proofs of service as to United Rentals, Inc., and United Rentals North America, Inc., in this action; (4) publicly available material on the California State Bar website relating to prior misconduct by Plaintiff’s counsel; and (5) an unpublished Court of Appeal decision, Charness v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WEI-MING LIOU VS JOLIN YI LIM TSAI

He attests that the Joint Case Management Statement he received on/about 9/12/16 on behalf of Defendants Wang and Jo “contained a statement about Defendant Jolin’s intent to file a complaint for indemnity to Defendant AMERIPRISE and Defendant LI-LIN HSU, if her Motion to Quash is denied.” (O’Connell Decl., ¶ 14). Such a statement, however, would not constitute a general appearance.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RONALD AUSTIN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

In advance of the June 23, 2020 trial setting conference, Austin submitted a case management statement attaching a confidential settlement offer made by the Department pursuant to Evidence Code section 1152, a fact which the court noted on the record at the TSC. Altura Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. 2. E.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IN RE MCAFEE, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION (CONSOLIDATED ACTION) (FORMERLY GREENBERG V. MCAFEE)

The proposed second 25 amended complaint does not assert new legal theories or add new causes of action or parties. 5 26 28 The December 10, 2018 trial date was suggested by the parties in their June 2018 joint case management statement and reserved pursuant the minute order filed August 3, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2018

CARLOS GALVEZ VS UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC ET AL

Request for Judicial Notice In support of the reply, Defendants request judicial notice of (1) the case management statement from this case; (2) the proofs of service as to Raymond Cruz and George Garcia in this action; (3) the proofs of service as to United Rentals, Inc., and United Rentals North America, Inc., in this action; (4) publicly available material on the California State Bar website relating to prior misconduct by Plaintiff’s counsel; and (5) an unpublished Court of Appeal decision, Charness v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

XUEHUA WANG, ET AL. V. ART OF REFLEXOLOGY MILPITAS, LLC, ET AL.

According to a subsequently filed case management statement, although the putative class consisted of only 62 individuals (including the two named plaintiffs), the administrator received 53 opt-out forms in response to the class notice. Plaintiffs contend that defendants interfered with the opt-out process and even falsified employees’ signatures on opt-out forms. Plaintiffs raised these issues in connection with the instant motion for discovery sanctions, which was filed on March 22, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS FLYNT [E-FILE]

The court has reviewed the detailed joint complex case management statement submitted by the parties. The court notes the case is now over a year old. Understanding the defendants believe they will never be required to file an answer, the court's instinct is to grant plaintiffs' request to set a trial date in April of 2021 (and set the other litigation benchmarks accordingly). ___________________ *The complaint in paragraphs 14 and 38 attempted to define "TPP."

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RINCON BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS OF THE RINCON RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS FLYNT [E-FILE]

The court has reviewed the detailed joint complex case management statement submitted by the parties. The court notes the case is now over a year old. Understanding the defendants believe they will never be required to file an answer, the court's instinct is to grant plaintiffs' request to set a trial date in April of 2021 (and set the other litigation benchmarks accordingly). ___________________ *The complaint in paragraphs 14 and 38 attempted to define "TPP."

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DANIEL VESPI VS. GALAXY TACO INC [E-FILE]

After the parties met and conferred with each other and submitted a joint case management statement setting forth their respective positions (ROA 189), the court met with counsel at the February 16, 2018 case management conference. The parties presented alternative versions of their proposed CMO, and the court heard argument regarding the parties' areas of disagreement. The Court took the matter under submission, and thereafter issued its own CMO.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NELSON RENE PINEDA VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

(See Adolph, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1449, 1451 [moving to compel arbitration six months after the filing of the complaint, during which time defendant filed two demurrers, accepted and contested discovery requests, made attempts to schedule discovery, and failed to assert arbitration in its case management statement, found to prejudice plaintiff by substantially undermining plaintiff's “‘ability to take advantage of the benefits and cost savings provided by arbitration’”].) (Spracher v. Paul M.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

MARIO GUERRA ET AL VS PEDRO LUIS AVELLA

The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file a Case Management Statement pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court, Rules 3.722, 3.724 and 3.725. Defendant Avella preserves his right to file a motion for trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 36, subdivision (a), and may request that this court set the hearing on the motion for a date following 16 court days statutory notice. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the setting of an expedited trial schedule.

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MARIA E. GUZMAN , ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

(See Adolph, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1449, 1451 [moving to compel arbitration six months after the filing of the complaint, during which time defendant filed two demurrers, accepted and contested discovery requests, made attempts to schedule discovery, and failed to assert arbitration in its case management statement, found to prejudice plaintiff by substantially undermining plaintiff's “‘ability to take advantage of the benefits and cost savings provided by arbitration’”].) (Spracher v. Paul M.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.