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

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

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

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

“Its purpose is to authorize the excision of superfluous or abusive allegations. ‘[M]atter that is essential to a cause of action should not be struck and it is error to do so.’” (Id.) The second is where a party seeks to “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Contract) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Tort) Negligent Maintenance of Premises Maintenance of Nuisance Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5) Compel Mediation On November 14, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) N/A Summary of the case.

  • 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

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

LOUIS & IRENE MONROY, TRUSTEES OF THE LOUIS & IRENE FAMILY TRUST OF 2447 NO. CHICO AVENUE, SO. EL MONTE, CA 91733, ET AL. VS HING KA HWANG, ET AL.

Discussion Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $85,206.86 (i.e., $82,100.84 in damages, $2,532.02 in attorney’s fees [per Local Rule 3.214] and $574.00 in costs). The court declines to award $3,250.00 for repairs to the subject premises, inasmuch as Garcia was previously requested to attach documentary evidence of same, but has failed to do so. ANALYSIS Yes (5/12/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all Parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF YOLANDA REBECA SILVA

Nature of Proceedings: Petition: Letters of Administration ; Hearing re: Fee Waiver Reconsideration The Court at the July 27, 2020 appearance ruled that: This matter is continued to August 24, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 4 The Estate is required to pay the normal filing fee(s). The bond amount requirement is in the amount of $510,000.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

HAYK MELKUMYAN VS. ELMER A. DIAZ, ET AL

The burden transfers to Defendant to show a triable issue of fact exists. Defendant failed to file an opposition and thus did not meet his burden. The motion is persuasive. MOVING PARTY TO SUBMIT ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED, ____________________ TO GIVE NOTICE.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TARZANA VILLAGE COMPANY, LLC. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JOSEPH COLUMBIA, ET AL.

TARZANA VILLAGE V COLUMBIA 20VECV00336 TENTATIVE RULING ON REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT: DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All three declarations submitted with the request for entry of default judgment are inadmissible because all three declarations lack the language of certification (ie: statements are made “under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California…”). CCP sec. 2015.5; Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 618.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CONS. OF NANCY SHEPSON

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF TEMP CONSERVATOR FILED ON 07/28/20 BY CHRISTY JAMES, JANET DIDONE PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of Service on all persons entitled to receive notice 3. Proposed Order CHRISTY JAMES DAVID MONSOUR JANET DIDONE DAVID MONSOUR NANCY SHEPSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of Service on all persons entitled to receive notice 3.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF JACONREY M WILLIS

Have a copy of the Order to Show Cause personally served on the mother and file a Proof of Service with the court or file a verified declaration by petitioner showing diligent efforts made to locate and serve her CRC 7.52 2. File a Proof of Publication of Order to Show Cause For Change of Name 3. Submit a Decree Changing Name Form NC-130 JACONREY MONTE WILLIS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved. Proposed Order Submitted. No Appearance Required.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF C'TOR, PERSON AND ESTATE

Report of Atty. Jonathan Thompson (limited) Note: Letters of Conservatorship issued to petitioners 10-1-97. BEPPIE PISTONE RONALD K. MULLIN GLYNIS A. PISTONE RONALD K. MULLIN STEVEN MICHAEL REED-PISTONE JONATHAN T. THOMPSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Resolution of Line # 19.B. 2. Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice or verified declaration by petitioner showing diligent efforts made to locate and serve them.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N AND DECLARATION ISO OF ORDER APPRVING COM

Verified declaration by Attorney Housman to show nature and difficulty of tasks performed, results achieved, benefit of services to the conservatee, and to specify the amount requested for each category of service provided. CRC §§ 7.702; 7.751(b) (also time and hourly rate) 6. Statement regarding bond per LR 7.111(b), including amount currently posted. The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Court Investigator’s Report 2. Report of Atty.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS. OF MAURICE COKER

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF CONSERVATOR OF PERS AND EST FILED ON 08/21/19 BY LILY COKER, STEVEN COKER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Drop. Note: Letters of Conservatorship of Person/Estate issued to Lily Coker and Steven Coker 7- 10-2020. LILY COKER TRACY S REGLI MAURICE COKER OLIVER W.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

18131 VENTURA BLVD, LLC, ET AL VS. 5223 LINDLEY, LLC

The date of placement of utilities, where they were located, and related issues were hotly contested. It was not unreasonable to take these depositions. B. Expedited Transcripts – GRANT. Tax $4,218.55. Costs for expedited transcription are not seen as reasonably necessary because there is no showing of any time restraint in obtaining the transcripts. As argued by Plaintiffs, the depositions were conducted well before the trial date. C. Service of Process – DENY.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • 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

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.