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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS AMERICAN SURETY

. _____________________________ TENTATIVE RULING The Court DENIES American Surety Company's motion to vacate summary judgment pursuant to Civil Code § 1511 and to extend the 90 day period on bail bond pursuant to Penal Code § 1305.4. ANALYSIS American Surety Company filed a $50,000 bond on behalf of Miguel A. Bolan Garcia. On January 4, 2019, Garcia failed to appear and his bail was declared forfeited.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

DAVID BABAIE, ET AL. VS TRANS WEST INVESTIGATIONS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendant also asserts that “Civil Code § 3369 provides that an injunction cannot be used to enforce a penalty or forfeiture in any case, nor to enforce a Penal law, except in case of nuisance.” (Id. at p. 12:1-2.)

  • Hearing

CHUCKRID HUTAYANA VS YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF

This is because “the purpose of discovery sanctions is not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented.” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 301.)

  • Hearing

CITY OF CALEXICO VS. KEELY MARTIN BOSLER AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Bonds). The 2011 Bonds are to be used for “financing certain redevelopment activities…benefitting the Project Area consisting of certain capital facilities of the School District.” (AR, 124.) The 2011 Bonds are generally secured by “Pledged Tax Revenues,” which are defined to include “School District Pass Through Payments.” (AR, 131,132, 134.)

  • Hearing

PETER HAMLETT ET AL VS LUIGI LOZANO

The complaint prays for forfeiture of the agreement, reasonable fees, and statutory damages up to $600. The Notices served upon defendant are attached to the complaint, and reveal that the 30-Day Notice to Vacate was served upon defendant on September 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

BARBARA A. COHEN VS OREN ABUTBUL, ET AL.

Bitton, and American Contractors Indemnity Company asserting causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligence Per Se; (5) Fraudulent Inducement; (6) Fraud/Promise Without Intent to Perform; (7) Breach of Express and Implied Warranties; (8) Recovery on Contractors’ License Bonds; (9) Disgorgement; (10) Elder Financial Abuse; and (11) Conversion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INTELLISOFT, LTD. V. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Permission to file a compulsory cross-complaint is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 and “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, 98–99.)

  • Hearing

ALIONSO ANGEL VS DANA ZIENERT-KIND, ET AL.

A policy of liberal construction of California Code of Civil Procedure, 426.50 to avoid forfeiture of causes of action is imposed on the trial court. (Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-99.) 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. (Id. at 99.)

  • Hearing

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY INC THE BAIL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment; Discharge Forfeiture and Exonerate Bail brought by defendant Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. is GRANTED. The motion is unopposed. Failure to file and/or serve an opposition constitutes an admission that a motion is meritorious. Rooney v. Vermont Inv. Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 367. Moreover, the Court notes that in this particular case, the motion is expressly unopposed by plaintiff People of the State of California.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

CA RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LP VS NELSON

Many of the assets fell into disrepair, sustained substantial government fines, and were lost to government forfeiture. (FAC 5-6, 83-122, 150, 155.) Throughout their management, defendants misrepresented the status of CROF's investment with false financial reports reflecting purported profits earned by CROF. (FAC 2, 32, 50-56, 63, 71, 85.) When CROF sought to divest itself from the investment, defendants falsely represented profits were simply delayed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CA RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LP VS NELSON

Many of the assets fell into disrepair, sustained substantial government fines, and were lost to government forfeiture. (FAC 5-6, 83-122, 150, 155.) Throughout their management, defendants misrepresented the status of CROF's investment with false financial reports reflecting purported profits earned by CROF. (FAC 2, 32, 50-56, 63, 71, 85.) When CROF sought to divest itself from the investment, defendants falsely represented profits were simply delayed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

(5) Pursuant to the Public Records Act, the full name and address of every individual arrested by the Downey Police Department at or near The Junction Bar…during the period of April 4, 2007 through April 4, 2017, including the individual’s physical description, date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HOUSTON V. SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS

Section 3275 relates to relief in case of forfeiture. This has no application in the case at hand. A cause of action for misrepresentation is generally labeled as intentional misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Robert S

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. AMERICAN SURETY CO.

The premature entry of summary judgment of forfeiture of bail bond is voidable. (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1046.) A voidable judgment is “subject to correction by appeal or a timely motion to vacate the judgment.” (Id.) The motion to set aside the summary judgment entered on bail forfeiture must be brought within 60 days of when the clerk mails notice of entry of judgment. (People v.

  • Hearing

PROPORTION FOODS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS USI CALIFORNIA INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99 held, “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.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS MERIDA VS NJR THREE PROPERTIES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

A landlord’s election to declare a forfeiture of the lease on a three-day notice is nullified and the lease remains in effect if the tenant cures within three days after service of the notice. CCP §1161.5. When the tenant has breached a covenant in the lease which cannot be cured – such as maintaining a nuisance on the premises or using the premises for an illegal purpose – the tenant has terminated the lease as a matter of law and the landlord need provide only a 3-day “notice to quit.” CCP §1161(4).

  • Hearing

DAMIAN LEMONS ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

This being the case, there is little reason to distinguish the present facts from the cases cited by Defendants involving forfeiture of physical property. Like a forfeiture imposed in a criminal or civil enforcement action as a penalty for wrongdoing, the moratorium at issue here was imposed against Plaintiffs for their violation of Los Angeles building codes, not for “public use” as conventionally understood under constitutional takings jurisprudence.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VANESSA AYON, , AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS A PROXY FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS THERMAL OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY

discharge by this Agreement, Defendant as well as each of their past and present agents, employees, representatives, officers, directors, shareholders, attorneys, accountants, insurers, reinsurers, receivers, advisors, consultants, partners, partnerships, parents, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, assigns, successors, heirs (‘Released Parties’), from all other liabilities, causes of actions, charges, complaints, suits, claims, obligations, costs, losses, damages, rights, judgments, attorneys’ fees, expenses, bonds

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The deponent is also subject to the forfeiture and the payment of damages set forth in Section 1992. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1992 provides “[a] person failing to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a court order forfeits $500 and all damages that he or she may sustain by the failure of the person to appear pursuant to the subpoena or court order, which forfeiture and damages may be recovered in a civil action.”

  • Hearing

ALYSSA ROBERTS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS MAX ROSE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The deponent is also subject to the forfeiture and the payment of damages set forth in Section 1992. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1992 provides “[a] person failing to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a court order forfeits $500 and all damages that he or she may sustain by the failure of the person to appear pursuant to the subpoena or court order, which forfeiture and damages may be recovered in a civil action.”

  • Hearing

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

Continued Hearing on 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 DMS

  • Hearing

VENTOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GARBIS CHRIKJIAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA CIGAR COMPANY

The court denied Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Forfeiture. [Tentative] Ruling Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED. DISCUSSION Plaintiff Ventop, LLC moves the court for an order awarding attorney fees in the amount of $35,483.50 against Defendant Garbis Chrikjian on the grounds that the parties’ lease agreement contains an attorney fee clause that entitles Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, to recover its reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action.

  • Hearing

FAROOQ-ABDUL:ALEEM VS TANIGUCH

Plaintiff seems to be asserting some claims based on bonds of some kind, apparently issued or otherwise arranged by the Allianz defendants. But he never identifies what the bonds are, who owns or holds them, who the obligor(s) may be, or why anyone is in breach of them. Still less does he explain what these alleged bonds have to do with either himself, or the defendants affiliated with the San Mateo court.

  • Hearing

TOLARA GROSS VS EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

In this circumstance, waiver is similar to a forfeiture arising from the nonperformance of a required act. (Id.) When the agreement does not specify a deadline for demanding arbitration, a party who does not demand arbitration within a reasonable time is deemed to have waived the right to arbitration. (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

4000 BURBANK, LLC VS ELANI KINOSHITA, ET AL.

) · If Tenants fail to pay any of the payments, then upon 48-hour telephonic notice to their counsel, Plaintiff shall make ex parte application for entry of judgment for possession of the premises, forfeiture of the lease, and the then-due and owing sums required to be made in paragraphs 5-6. (Id., ¶9.) · The Stipulation does not affect the Tenants’ future obligations under the lease. (Id., ¶10.)

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 129     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.