What are judicial and non-judicial forfeiture?

Useful Rulings on Judicial and Non-Judicial Forfeiture

Recent Rulings on Judicial and Non-Judicial Forfeiture

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

As a preliminary matter, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ and the City’s requests for judicial notice; OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ objections to the Engstrom Declaration; and SUSTAINS objection nos. 1, 5, 7 and 9 to the Belmar Declaration and OVERRULES all remaining objections. GENERAL LAW A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show an imminent threat of irreparable harm should the preliminary injunction not issue. (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

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 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. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1); Not required in UD cases) 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.) N/A_________ _ Interest computations.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

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).) 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. 3.2; open book – CC 1717.5.) See above______ Interest computations.

  • 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 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).) 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.

  • 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

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

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

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.) 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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

The following defects are noted: The Judicial Council Request for Entry of Default Form CIV-100 identifies the following amounts: $43,610 as “[d]emand of complaint,” $35,642.50 in general damages, $4,355.00 in interest, $3,210.69 in costs and $1,698.00 in attorney fees; however, the “TOTALS” amount is listed as $39,997.50 (the above figures, however total $80,548.69).

  • 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.

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.) No 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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Request for Judicial Notice Emanate’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is ruled on as follows: GRANTED as to Exhibit C (i.e., SAC filed January 4, 2019).

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Although it appears Plaintiff has now limited his damages to $150,000.00, Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with an amended Judicial Council Request for Entry of Default Form CIV-100 or an amended proposed judgment. The court requests that any further application for default prove-up be full and complete in and of iteself, including all documents enumerated in California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, 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

    Jul 30, 2020

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, ET AL.

The following defects are noted: Plaintiffs’ Judicial Council Request for Entry of Default Form CIV-100 states that the “[d]emand of complaint” is $76,476.15. This amount, however, is not set forth anywhere in Plaintiffs’ complaint; rather, Plaintiffs’ complaint only makes repeated reference to $60,000.00 (See Complaint, ¶¶22, 28, 35, 41, 49, 53, 60 and Prayer, ¶2.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOHN PHAM VS HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, 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

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SHARON HUDSON VS RIVIERA PLACE,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

    Jul 27, 2020

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

REASONING Request for Judicial Notice Defendant Los Angeles World Airports (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of Plaintiff Hagop Tchakerian (“Plaintiff”)’s Complaint of Discrimination filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Defendant’s request is GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c). Demurrer “[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

REASONING Request for Judicial Notice Defendant Nathalie Dubois (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Anna Shoykhet, Gabrielle Shoykhet, and Cavi Pur LLC (“Plaintiffs”) in this action. While the request for judicial notice does not comply with rules 3.1113(l) and 3.1306(c), the Court nonetheless GRANTS Defendant’s request, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARSHA A. JOHNSON VS BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSES

Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

Although the Court concludes each claim is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, the Court provides a short analysis of each cause of action in the interest of judicial efficiency such that Plaintiff may cure such additional deficiencies beyond the issue of time-barred claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

Nonetheless, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court considers the merits of Defendant’s motion, but it notes that subsequent failures to comply with statutory obligations may result in a continuance of the hearing on the subject motion. Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the Court’s Tentative Ruling on the Application for a Preliminary Injunction and three provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

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.