What is Settling Before Withdrawal?

Useful Rulings on Duty of Dismissal or Withdrawal - Meritless Case

Recent Rulings on Duty of Dismissal or Withdrawal - Meritless Case

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Where, as here, the defendants are public agencies and the plaintiff seeks to restrain them in the performance of their duties, public policy considerations also come into play. There is a general rule against enjoining public officers or agencies from performing their duties. This rule would not preclude a court from enjoining unconstitutional or void acts, but to support a request for such relief the plaintiff must make a significant showing of irreparable injury.”

  • 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

Rulings on Evidentiary Objections The Court DECLINES to rule on all of the parties’ objections because "the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion." (CCP § 437c(q).). In this regard, Saddleback’s Objection No. 8 (page 15 of ROA 2642) to the Patel Declaration is sustained as to the phrase “and others representing 5th Rock T-12” on the grounds of hearsay and otherwise is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

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

originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

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

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, contingent upon Plaintiff’s production of the original promissory note to the court for cancellation in compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1806 (i.e., “[i]n all cases in which judgment is rendered upon a written obligation to pay money, the clerk must, at the time of entry of judgment, unless otherwise ordered, note over the clerk’s official signature and across the face of the writing the fact of rendition of judgment

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

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

    Jan 27, 2021

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, 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

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

Plaintiff does not address the disposition of any security deposit. ANALYSIS Yes (2/26/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

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

    Jan 12, 2021

  • 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

    Jan 11, 2021

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

In such case, the Local Rule 3.214(a) applies and the Court orders the Cross-Complainant to revise and reduce the amount in accordance with the rule and the new compensatory damage. Clerk to give notice _____________________________ Dennis J. Landin, Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

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

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).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

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

    Dec 14, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS TOTAL BODY EXPERTS LLC, ET AL.

Proc. § 1005(b). BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) money lent; and (3) account stated. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) and seeks summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Total Body Experts LLC and Marc Erickson.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

Proc. § 1005(b). BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (2) hostile work environment harassment; (3) wrongful termination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (5) violation of California’s unfair competition law under Bus. and Prof.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF AMENDED FIRST ACCT & RPT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE,

Note: Order Approving Waiver of First Account filed 6-16-2020 authorized 2nd account to be filed by 3-1-2021. JOHN PAUL TURNER LAURA A. ZAMORA TIMOTHY JOHN REID RAILTON FILED ON 08/11/20 BY DEBORAH PHILIPS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of personal service of Citation on personal representative. PrC § 8500(b) 3. Proof of mailing to Franchise Tax Board who requested special notice. PrC § 1202 4. Proposed Order Notes: 1.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE LLOYD W HARRICH TRUST

RE: RPT OF SUC T'TEE PET’N FOR INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 02/19/19 BY GABRIELA B ODELL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation Note: Response filed by Monica Harrich-Griswold and Jessica Harrich 9-30-19.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL ACCT & RPT OF ADMNTR & PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT & FNL DIST

JAMES BOWERMAN KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS JANICE BOWERMAN MATTHEW B TALBOT LAWRENCE BOWERMAN CAROLYN D CAIN PAMELA R. REGATUSO OLIVER W. BRAY THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

Verified declaration by petitioner to include an itemized list of securities held in US Bancorp investment account at beginning and ending of account period 2. Verified declaration by attorney in support of attorney’s fees as referenced at ¶ 14. 3. Proposed Order Note: Related matter is set for 2-9-2021. BOWMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST RHONDA BRINK RONALD B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHAFIQ SIDIQI VS GAYANE BALABANYAN

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

Do one or the other, but not both: (1) Have a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition Form GC-210 personally served on Dontray and file Proof of Service or (2) have Dontray sign a consent and waiver form (GC-211) 4.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES LLC VS MICHAEL D. GARRIS

Proc. § 1005(b). BACKGROUND Petitioner filed a petition (the “Petition”) to confirm an arbitration award (the “Arbitration Award”)[1] issued by FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc. (“FINRA”) resulting from an arbitration between Petitioner and Respondent in the matter of Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC v. Michael David Garris, FINRA Case No. 19-03549.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

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

As currently pled, the four causes of action named against fail to state sufficient facts against Moving Defendants. Demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Motion to Strike Based upon the recommendation made on the demurrer, Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the complaint is MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 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 load this page.