What is a Claim Opposing Forfeiture in Bail Bonds?

Useful Rulings on Claim Opposing Forfeiture in Bail Bonds

Recent Rulings on Claim Opposing Forfeiture in Bail Bonds

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

But that is not the case here; Plaintiff received all the leave he requested and as such any purported communication failure of Everport did not cause a forfeiture of any CFRA rights. In light of the foregoing, Everport has met its burden of showing that Plaintiff will not be able to establish his cause of action for CFRA interference, and Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a triable issue. Accordingly, summary adjudication of the first cause of action is GRANTED. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTINE NICOLE BONDS

Co-Conservators' biennial status report was filed on 1/10/20. The Tri-Counties IPP report was filed on 2/27/20. The Court has reviewed the status report and it is complete. No appearance is required. The next biennial status report shall be filed on or before 1/7/22, and set for a filing/sufficiency hearing on 2/8/22, 10:30 AM, J6. The cler...

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

RANCHO NUEVO HARVESTING, INC. V. MELONCO, LLC

Recoverable costs include costs of service, expenses of attachment and premiums on surety bonds. Ordinarily, a hearing on noticed motion is required before a right to attach order and writ of attachment are issued. Although official forms are used, defendants must support their applications by one or more detailed evidentiary affidavits or declarations. Plaintiff’s declarations must, at the very least, show plaintiff would prevail on the claim for which attachment is sought.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RUBY VILLESCAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

Approximately 11 hours after her initial arrest, Plaintiff posted bail and was released from custody on August 11, 2017 around 11:30 am. (UF ¶ 27.) Discussion I. Assault Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for assault because Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Deputy Byrne or Deputy Perez had any intent to cause Plaintiff any harm or approached Plaintiff with any threat.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GOLDWATER SAG HOLDINGS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COPORATION VS YUK SIN YUEN, ET AL.

Superior Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1186, in which mortgagees of a bankrupt lessee filed a petition for relief from forfeiture but failed to discuss a certain statute in any papers submitted to the trial court. (Id. at p. 1200.) Therefore, the court of appeal held that it did not need to address the issue as it was effectively raised for the first time on appeal. (Id.) Geary Street bears no meaningful similarity to the present circumstances.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC VS KMC LANDSCAPING SERVICES

Sixth Cause of Action In RMS’s sixth cause of action for foreclosure on contractor’s bond, RMS alleges that ACIC and SIC are surety companies which posted indemnity bonds for KMC. (FAC ¶¶ 94-95.) RMS alleges that KMC is liable to RMS for its wrongful and fraudulent acts and that ACIC and SIC are, in turn, liable to RMS for KMC’s wrongful acts. (FAC ¶¶ 96-97.) Per this cause of action, RMS seeks to foreclose and collect on the bonds. (FAC ¶ 98.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

VOLVO FINANCIAL SERVICES, A DIVISION OF VFS US LLC VS COMMERCIAL WASTE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

An attorney may still withdraw on proper grounds; the effect is that the corporation is without representation and without ability to practice self-representation, putting pressure on the corporation to obtain new counsel for risk of forfeiture of its rights. (Id. at 503-04.) Here, trial is not yet scheduled in this matter, and no upcoming dates are scheduled after the hearing on the motions to be relieved as counsel. Accordingly, Counsel’s motions are each granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

RICHARD WEGER ET AL VS MARY ALICE MEDINA

“Issues not supported by citation to legal authority are subject to forfeiture.” People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 18 Cal.App.5th 801, 831 n10 (2017) (applying similar CRC 8.204(a)(1)(B) applicable to appeals). Also, when a party demurs to the entire complaint, if the petition states any cause of action, the court will overrule the demurrer. Warren v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36 (1971). Weger/Dagg has not demurred to the fifth and sixth causes of action in the CC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARY STILES VS EVEREADY BONDS INC

Petitioner used the property as collateral with respondent Eveready Bonds, Inc. to secure bail for her son, who was in jail. In connection with the bail, respondent recorded a deed of trust on the property. After petitioner’s son’s legal matter was concluded and all bail bond fees paid, respondent was supposed to release the property lien, but failed to do so. Respondent is no longer in business and there is no known successor company.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

Thus, Plaintiffs seek possession of the premises, past due rent of $12,000.00, forfeiture of the agreement, damages at the rate of $95.34 from November 17, 2018, and statutory and treble damages against Defendant. The complaint was filed on February 10, 2020. B. Motions on Calendar On March 4, 2020, Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint. On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the demurrer. On July 1, 2020, Defendant filed a reply brief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LANA SIEU NGU VS CITY BAIL BONDS ET AL

The minute order of the same date stated: “Court orders judgment for Plaintiff Ngu, Lana Sieu against Defendant Kha, Ethan DBA City Bail Bonds, Defendant Kha, Mylinh DBA City Bail Bonds and Defendant City Bail Bonds, A Proprietorship on the Complaint filed by LANA SIEU NGU on 06/16/2015 for damages of $38,666.00, attorney fees of $1,308.00, and costs of $2,381.30 for a total of $42,355.30.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

STEPHEN J. BROWN VS AMBITIOUS PRODUCTIONS, INC., ET AL.

As a preliminary consideration the Court notes that, “[t]his subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.” (CCP § 426.50.) Here the proposed cross-complaint directly relates to the leases between the parties. (See Moving Papers, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 6-36.) Nor does Plaintiff dispute that these are not related to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN J. BROWN VS AMBITIOUS PRODUCTIONS, INC., ET AL.

As a preliminary consideration the Court notes that, “[t]his subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action.” (CCP § 426.50.) Here the proposed cross-complaint directly relates to the leases between the parties. (See Moving Papers, Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 6-36.) Nor does Plaintiff dispute that these are not related to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

Thus, Plaintiffs seek possession of the premises, past due rent of $12,000.00, forfeiture of the agreement, damages at the rate of $95.34 from November 17, 2018, and statutory and treble damages against Defendant. The complaint was filed on February 10, 2020. B. Motions on Calendar There are two motions to quash on calendar. On April 21, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to quash subpoena or for a protective order. The subpoena at issue is directed against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” United States Constitution, 8th Amendment. The Excessive Fines Clause was based directly on Art. I, §9 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights”, which “adopted verbatim the language of the English Bill of Rights.” Solem v. Helm, (1983) 463 U.S. 277, 285, n.10.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JOSHUA GONZALES VS VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER LLC [EFILE]

Plaintiffs alleged they were mischaracterized as independent contractors and asserted claims for unreimbursed business expenses, unpaid wages, unlawful forfeiture of wages upon termination, and related penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. On December 6, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action and PAGA settlement, and conditionally certified the class for purposes of settlement. ROA # 175.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ABBA BAIL BONDS INC VS GOTHAM BAIL BONDS LIMITED LIABILITY C

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Abba Bail Bonds Inc., Plaintiff, Case No. BC620878 v. [Tentative] Ruling Gotham Bail Bonds LLC, et al. Defendants. Hearing Date: July 7, 2020 Department 49, Judge Stuart M.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BRIAN ZERBA VS KILI ANDERSON ET AL

Within one year: (a) An action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, if the action is given to an individual, or to an individual and the state, except if the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation. (b) An action upon a statute for a forfeiture or penalty to the people of this state. CCP § 340. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated “[i]n or about the second quarter of 2016.” 1AC, Page 4:25.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROBERTO ALVARADO, ET AL. VS HZB MANUFACTURING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiffs further state that “[w]ithout the appointment of a receiver now, the revenue and assets of Rio Verde, HZB, and Pacific Cannabis will continue to dissipate that can and will likely subject Rio Verde to permanent forfeiture of the license necessary to conduct its business.” (Mot. 14.) Alvarado’s “fears” that Defendants have not properly accounted for cash transactions or have falsified corporate records are not evidence of a risk of harm to Rio Verde, HZB, or Pacific.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SALVADOR JUNIOR COSSIO VS JAVIER MALESPIN

The statute is liberally construed to avoid forfeiture. There is no evidence of bad faith on the part of moving party. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 426.50. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. V. MEADOWS PLAZA, LLC, ET AL.

Motion for Order Settling and Approving Receiver’s Final Accounting, Discharging Receiver and Exonerating All Bonds TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s counsel and the Receiver are to appear for hearing as scheduled. DMS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

FATIMA PATRICIA CISNEROS DE MANCIA ET AL VS GARY TAGLYAN ET

This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. “A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FATIMA PATRICIA CISNEROS DE MANCIA ET AL VS GARY TAGLYAN ET

This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. “A motion to file a cross-complaint at any time during the course of the action must be granted unless bad faith of the moving party is demonstrated where forfeiture would otherwise result. Factors such as oversight, inadvertence, neglect, mistake or other cause, are insufficient grounds to deny the motion unless accompanied by bad faith.” (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AZZE VS. WONG

(Magic Carpet courts generally do strictly enforce time deadlines in real estate sales contracts, permitting the seller to cancel after the time specified where time is specifically made of the essence unless there has been a waiver or potential forfeiture.” (Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1342.) In the Reply, Defendants argue that the issue of waiver was not raised in Plaintiff’s FAC and therefore should be disregarded. However, waiver is not an element of the cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ANABI OIL CORPORATION VS HIGHLAND PARK OIL INC ET AL

By January 15, 2020, Defense Counsel realized that the time for filing the motion for fees had expired, but he did not take any immediate action to seek relief from forfeiture. In addition, on February 4, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel notified Fitzmorris that the motion for fees and costs was untimely. Yet again, Defense Counsel did not immediately take any action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 117     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.