How must an attorney preserve confidential information?

Useful Resources for Confidential Information

Recent Rulings on Confidential Information

9976-10000 of 10000 results

ANGELICA THERRIEN VS HECTOR M. PEREZ

Proof, however, cannot be made by declaration based on information and belief. (Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1497–1498.) The question is whether the plaintiff has presented evidence in opposition to the defendant’s motion that, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. (Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI

The important point here is that Judge Smyth's decision was based on the untimeliness of plaintiff's resentencing request, not on the information provided by the District Attorney regarding plaintiff's conduct. There is simply no connection between his decision and the allegedly "false and misleading" information imparted by DDA Tafreshi. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that plaintiff suffered no injury as the result of the written representations which are at the core of this case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI

The important point here is that Judge Smyth's decision was based on the untimeliness of plaintiff's resentencing request, not on the information provided by the District Attorney regarding plaintiff's conduct. There is simply no connection between his decision and the allegedly "false and misleading" information imparted by DDA Tafreshi. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that plaintiff suffered no injury as the result of the written representations which are at the core of this case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

Any proposed assignee, transferee or sublessee shall submit to Landlord an application and credit information for Landlord’s approval and, if approved, shall sign a separate written agreement with Landlord and Tenant Landlord’s consent to any one assignment, transfer or sublease, shall not be construed as consent to any subsequent assignment, transfer or sublease and does not release Tenant of Tenant’s obligations under this Agreement. . .” (Facts 15 & 16.) A.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI

The important point here is that Judge Smyth's decision was based on the untimeliness of plaintiff's resentencing request, not on the information provided by the District Attorney regarding plaintiff's conduct. There is simply no connection between his decision and the allegedly "false and misleading" information imparted by DDA Tafreshi. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that plaintiff suffered no injury as the result of the written representations which are at the core of this case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INTELLIGENT SCM LLC ET AL VS RUSSELL W ROTEN ET AL

knowledge of ISCM’s affairs and ISCM’s confidential information to benefit Scott, and secretly prepared, and participated in the preparation of, pleadings filed by Scott.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI

The important point here is that Judge Smyth's decision was based on the untimeliness of plaintiff's resentencing request, not on the information provided by the District Attorney regarding plaintiff's conduct. There is simply no connection between his decision and the allegedly "false and misleading" information imparted by DDA Tafreshi. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that plaintiff suffered no injury as the result of the written representations which are at the core of this case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEE QUILLAR VS. BROOKE TAFRESHI

The important point here is that Judge Smyth's decision was based on the untimeliness of plaintiff's resentencing request, not on the information provided by the District Attorney regarding plaintiff's conduct. There is simply no connection between his decision and the allegedly "false and misleading" information imparted by DDA Tafreshi. This leads inexorably to the conclusion that plaintiff suffered no injury as the result of the written representations which are at the core of this case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RESIDUAL INCOME OPPORTUNITIES INC ET AL VS TRIBUL MERCHANT S

Plaintiffs request no. 13 further asks that the Court take judicial notice of Defendant’s Statement of Information obtained form the California Secretary of State’s website, and the fact that Defendant’s website admits they are a global payment gateway management company, and since 2007, under the dba of Authorize.net, provides credit-card processing services for independent sales organization resellers, on the grounds that the information is not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WETLANDS PRESERVATION FOUNDATION ET AL. VS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ET AL.

Information from Twitchell Island where rice is grown next to corn on soils with similar organic matter content indicates that the subsidence rates are reduced by over 85%. Allen Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. 15 at 29-30 (Factors Affecting Sustainability on Staten Island, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta). Additional Fact 49. • In 2009, DWR estimated that there was a 72% to 84% probability of levee failure on Staten Island.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

DAVID WEISSER V. THE CITY OF FOWLER

Accordingly, the attorney fee/cost award is limited to the billing entries which were accrued specifically in pursuing plaintiff’s PRA request. In reviewing the billing information supplied in the motion, that amount appears to be $2,120 in attorney fees and $435 in costs. Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312(a) and Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GERARDO SEGURA V. SAN JOSE, LLC, ET AL.

The Court retains an independent right and responsibility to review the requested attorney fees and award only so much as it determines to be reasonable. (See Garabedian v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 123, 127-128.) While 1/3 of the common fund for attorney fees is generally considered reasonable, counsel shall submit lodestar information prior to the final approval hearing in this matter so the Court can compare the lodestar information with the requested fees.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

CHARMIE RUFFY V. ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

Class members are informed of their qualifying work weeks as reflected in defendants’ records and instructed how to dispute this information. Class members are given 60 days to request exclusion from the class, dispute their workweek information, submit a written objection, and/or submit a consent to join form. They are instructed that they must submit a consent to join form to participate in the FLSA settlement, but that they will still be able to participate in the class settlement without doing so.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

MELODY HSIEH VS. SLIM GLOW CORP, ET AL

To nos. 142-143, Slim Glow objected on the basis that the RPDs seek documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ORLANDO FLORES

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a petition on June 28, 2019 in which Plaintiff petitioned the Court for assignment of a Superior Court file number and asserted that: (1) it is an insurer on a claim submitted by Defendant who is its insured for a reported theft loss on January 28, 2019; (2) as part of the claim investigation being conducted by Plaintiff, Defendant is required to produce cell phone records from January 27, 2019 to January 29, 2019 with “push to talk” call information and tower site information; and

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SHAY ALFANDARI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS SZ VAN NUYS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL.

Where it said to enter her contact information and digital signature, she typed in her own cell phone number and email address but put down her father’s name as the adult who was signing the form. For birth date, she accidentally typed in her mother’s birthdate instead of her fathers. Defendants rely on a notice of claim letter sent to Defendants on May 14, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

TINA MITHAIWALA VS JANNKI MITHAIWALA

Allegations Made on Information and Belief Jannki moves to strike portions of Paragraphs 13, 26, and 29 on the ground that they are made on information and belief without pleading a basis for believing the same. “ ‘A [p]laintiff may allege on information and belief any matters that are not within his personal knowledge, if he has information leading him to believe that the allegations are true.’ ” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE CARDOS SOBERANIS, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 200, INCLUSIVE

Defendants also misrepresented the nature of their chemical products, by withholding information from plaintiff regarding toxic chemicals released from their products during their anticipated or reasonable foreseeable uses, and such misrepresentation and withholding of information was ratified by the corporate officers and managers of each of the defendants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

LUCIA ROSE AFFATATO VS. WISH PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

Additionally, the duties described of a dual representative real estate broker, as is the case here, would militate against the disclosure of the information at issue in the instant case, as “a dual agent may not, without the express permission of the respective party, disclose to the other party confidential information, including, but not limited to, facts relating to either the Buyer’s or Seller’s financial position, motivations, bargaining position, or other personal information that may impact price”.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ELIZABETH B. MARSHALL, ET AL. VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A.

While Chase allegedly agreed to review Plaintiffs’ loan modification application, there are no allegations that Chase wrongfully rejected the application because it was using incorrect information and that it improperly handled the application, which deprived Plaintiffs the opportunity to obtain a loan modification that Plaintiffs were qualified to receive. Thus, the Court does not find that Alvarez applies to the facts of this case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PATRICK POTE VS HANDY TECHNOLOGIES INC

The 4/9/18 Service Professional Agreement states in relevant part: (c) REPRESENTATIVE ACTION WAIVER-PLEASE READ Handy and Service Professional mutually agree that by entering into this agreement to arbitrate, both waive their right to have any dispute or claim brought, heard or arbitrated as a representative action, including, but not limited to, a private attorney general action, and an arbitrator shall not have any authority to arbitrate a representative action, including, but not limited to, a private attorney

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHAEL HAZARD VS BURBANK AUTO PARTS ET AL

As the Court cannot adequately analyze these factors with the information provided herein, the Court will consider this factor to be neutral in its analysis. Financial Condition & Insurance Policy Limits – No information is provided in the motion regarding Hanson’s financial condition or any insurance policy limits that may factor in to the settlement figure. Without information, therefore, the Court will consider these factors as neutral.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

NEVAREZ V. FOSTER FARMS, LLC

Within 14 days of entry of the Court’s execution of the order, defendant need provide the contact information for class members to the class administrator, who must mail such notice (including re-mailings) within 30 days from receiving the mailing information.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. VS BRIGHT GLOW CANDLE COMPANY, INC.

Based on this information, the court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the application. Plaintiff must address the assignment issue and Defendant’s payment of $15,000.00 to Euler Hermes in a supplemental declaration.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TIFFANY ZACHERY VS ZUOIN CAO

” #64 – This interrogatory seeks information concerning the doctors the decedent last visited but does not contain a time period. Therefore, the Court limits this interrogatory to five years before the decedent’s death. Defendant’s motion is granted. The Court orders Plaintiff to provide contact information for all doctors the decedent saw during this time period. #65 – Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Defendant’s motion is denied because Plaintiff has provided a code-compliant answer.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 ... 395 396 397 398 399 400

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.