What is a Claim Opposing Forfeiture of a Lease or Rental Agreement?

Useful Rulings on Claim Opposing Forfeiture of a Lease or Rental Agreement

Recent Rulings on Claim Opposing Forfeiture of a Lease or Rental Agreement

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

On March 1, 2019 the Court issued its ruling regarding the interpretation of Section 13.2(f) of the parties’ lease agreement.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

“The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (Id.) 2. Evolution Evolution manages the operations of the hotel pursuant to a management agreement with T-12 and is a party plaintiff to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, and the Second Cause of Action for Negligence. Evolution is not a party to the express and implied warranty claims.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

A peremptory writ of administrative mandamus shall issue under the seal of this Court, remanding the matter to Respondents and commanding Respondents to set aside the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except for discharges originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

Reyes Fernandez Anderson Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case to An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom from Department 29, a PI Hub Court. The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the Court's website.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff’s authorized agent, Michael Tang (“Tang”), attests that the monthly rental amount was $43,153.00, which was subsequently increased to $44,447.59 effective May 1, 2019. Exhibit 4b to Tang’s declaration, however, reflects that the parties’ lease agreement encompasses the premises located at “901 S.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

See above Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

Zurich American Insurance Company Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case to An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom from Department 29, a PI Hub Court. The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the Court's website.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

DANIEL GINZBURG, ET AL. VS 15025 SATICOY STREET, INC., ET AL.

Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case to An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom from Department 29, a PI Hub Court. The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the Court's website.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

City of Los Angeles, et al. Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case to An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom from Department 29, a PI Hub Court. The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the Court's website.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA PETERSON

The next previously scheduled hearing is on 8/18/20 to review the filing / sufficiency of the status report due on or before 7/20/20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

(CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

I took the time to look at a calendar and compare each day with my recollection of time worked and records including emails, text messages, and various schedules, attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A,’ to calculate the number of hours that I worked in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.” (Plaintiff’s Supplemental Decl., ¶6.) Much of Exhibit A, however, is comprised of communications made in a foreign language. No translation has been provided. (See California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On or about August 23, 2019, under the business practices described above, Plaintiff entered into a Merchant Capital Agreement (“Agreement”) with Five Bulls Transport, Inc. (“Five Bulls”), which was personally guaranteed by Francisco Javier Toro Anacleto (“Anacleto”). Per the terms of the Agreement, Five Bulls received a cash advance of $40,000.00, with a remittance amount of $55,200.00. On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff received notice that Five Bulls’ remittance had bounced for nonsufficient funds.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Emanate has submitted the following evidence: In response to Form Interrogatory 50.1, which asked “Was there a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings? If so, for each breach describe and give the date of every act or omission that you claim is the breach of the agreement,” Plaintiff responded solely with objections and the following statement: “Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the Non-Disclosure Agreement. Defendant did not breach the agreement in any fashion.” (Riaz Decl., ¶6, Exh. E).

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

(CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.) No Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form MC-010; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

ROGER PHILIPP 19SMUD01621 TENTATIVE DECISION This unlawful detainer action resulted in a judgment for the defendant after the Court granted an oral motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its verified complaint, plaintiff alleged the existence of a lease with an attorneys’ fee clause in favor of the property owner in the event of a default by the tenant. On February 3, 2020, the Court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chen, Tissuesco and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty On October 23, 2019, Chen’s default was entered. Discussion The hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to September 2, 2020 8:30 a.m. The following defects are noted: Tissuesco’s default has not been entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The declaration lacks the requisite language for admissibility (ie: identification of the place of signing and/or a statement providing “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California…” if signed outside of California.) To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Z&A Associates, Inc., et al. Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case to An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom from Department 29, a PI Hub Court. The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the Court's website.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE FRANCES CARLENTINE

Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Final Distribution No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Plaintiffs allege that on or about June 2014, Defendant Kwan and Plaintiff Sam, by and through CAC LLC, entered into a purchase and sale agreement for the subject property, which was purchased through a loan CAC LLC received from East West Bank. (FAC, ¶18.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.