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

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

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

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

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

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

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/Form CIV-105. (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).)

  • Hearing

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

See below.AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE MICHAEL P.

  • Hearing

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

.;” however, the “Credit Application and Agreement” attached as Exhibit A to the complaint and as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Glen Hansen (“Hansen”) references “CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” at the top of Page 1 and does not appear to make any reference to Cemex USA, Inc. Hansen’s declaration also refers to “Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” as Plaintiff. It would appear that a substitution of plaintiff is needed. ANALYSIS Yes (10/16/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

Background Plaintiff 717 Nogales, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of the industrial property known as 719 Nogales Street, City of Industry, California 91749 (“subject property”). On or about February 24, 2012, Plaintiff conveyed to an entity known as “Sunrise Logistics Group” (“SLG”) a leasehold interest in the subject property for a three year term (“Lease”). On or about August 19, 2014, Plaintiff and SLG amended the Lease by a First Amendment to Lease.

  • Hearing

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

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

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

See below.AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE MICHAEL P.

  • Hearing

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Further, the Cross-Complainant asks for attorney fees but only submits a declaration that states it "has incurred $139,945.05 in legal fees and costs to pursue its claims" without any proof or breakdown of the fees. On the other hand, the FACC and the Cross-Complainant's additional declarations state that the request is based upon the terms of the parties' agreement that provides for recovery of reasonable attorney fees.

  • Hearing

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (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.) Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).) N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

No further hearings are in Dept. 28, Spring StreetAFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

Letters of Guardianship of Person issued to paternal grandmother, Barbara Scott 8-12- 16. 2. Parties entered into a mediated settlement agreement on 1/31/2020. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Lutricia Randolph, maternal aunt, still needs to do the following: 1. Appear at the hearing 2.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

Demurrer to FAC A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PETITION OF TRAVEON C GAINS

Original signature on verification or verified declaration to attach a corrected face page in compliance with LR 2.80 et seq. and CRC § 2.300 et seq. regarding facsimile filing. 3. Declaration whether all known creditors received notice &/or were paid. PrC § 10900, LR 7.309(a) 4. Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. Summary of Account that complies with PrC § 1061(b). Accounting must begin with values as reported in Inventory & Appraisal. 5.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF CO-EXECUTORS ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNT

SILVERMAN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required CASSANDRA L GREEN JOHN A MANGINI ETHEL L. SMITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SHARON L. ANDERSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 1 Need appearances to report status, including 9-1-2020 order to meet and confer Note: Objection filed by John Martini, Richard Martini and David Martini 10-15-2019.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO COMPEL TIMOTHY MARTINI TO ACCT; RPT ACTS COMPEL

Revised, proposed order with copy of Will attached, if lost will is to be admitted Note: Proof of Publication filed 9-29-2020 is missing from court file. Please fax a copy to Probate Examiners as a courtesy to the court. ITALO FERRANDO TINA FERRANDO GRAHAM ELIZABETH E TRUTNER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required AUDREY CELESTINE CAESAR YERDUA CAESAR-KAPTOECH JILL BATES-MOORE

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST STATUS REPORT OF THE EXECUTOR'S ADMINISTRATION

Verified declaration by petitioner to include date of each receipt, and itemized expenses re: sale of real property. Reference to closing statement is insufficient. PrC §§ 1062(a) and (b) 6. Verified declaration of petitioner showing compliance with Probate Code § 11005 7. Evidence of agreement between Attorneys Ashe and Healy as to payment of attorney’s fees. 8.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF ETHEL MAE HARTS

RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FILED ON 08/19/20 BY DELPHIA LANCASTER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Petition verified. Petition verification was not dated by petitioner. (CCP § 2015.5) DELPHIA LANCASTER JASON JM ROSS ETHEL MAE HARTS

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRUST INSTRUMENT & CONFIRMATION

Report of Atty. Constance Figuers (limited) CEDRIC SNOW JENNIFER L STENEBERG LELAND SNOW CONSTANCE H FIGUERS LESLIE A SNOW JENNIFER L STENEBERG PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Verified declaration in support of attorney’s fees paid as reported at paragraph 6. Statement showing services rendered, hours and rates charged so ct. can evaluate attorney fees reported. LR 7.450. 2. Proposed Order Note: Per 7-27-2020 minute order, Atty.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

File a verified declaration to specify plan of distribution, including approximate amount of cash and number of shares of each security to be distributed to each beneficiary. LR 7.307(a) 3. Submit a proposed Order LIESL RITTS MATTHEW RITTS ROSEMARIE RITTS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Rasilio Surio, husband, still must do the following: 1. Have a copy of the Citation Form GC-320 personally served on conservatee.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF CHE ANDREA TRAVERS

RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE FILED BY CHE' TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Che Travers still must do the following: File a Proof of Publication of Order to Show Cause For Change of Name CHE ANDREA TRAVERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Meiasha Davis, mother, still must do the following: Have a copy of the Order to Show Cause personally served on each father and file a Proof of Service with the court or file a verified declaration

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE

Verified declaration to include Form ICWA-010(A) to confirm that you have questioned minor’s relatives as to whether minor has any Indian ancestry CRC 5.481 4. Parental Notification of Indian Status Form ICWA-020 filed 5. Proposed Order The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Report of Atty. Summer Selleck 2. Report of Atty. Robert O. Morris Need: 1. UCCJEA Form FL-105 verified. Verification is not dated. 2. Court Investigator’s Report Note: Form ICWA-030 was filed 11-18-2020.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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 load this page.