What is a LPS mental health conservatorship?

Useful Rulings on LPS Mental Health Conservatorship

Recent Rulings on LPS Mental Health Conservatorship

WILLIAM M. DORFMAN DDS VS PATTI CANTOR ET AL

Section 5330 creates a private right of action for damages against an individual who has willfully and knowingly released confidential information or records in violation of Chapter 2 of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) or Chapter 1 (commencing with section 11860) of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

# 11. Josefa Uriostegui v. American Iron & Metal, et al. Case No.: 19STCV17793 Matter on calendar for: Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice Tentative ruling: Plaintiff Josefa Uriostegui worked as a lab technician at Elite Optical Company from 1987 through 2017. During that time, she performed various tasks such as blocking, grinding, ...

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERIC MALL VS NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL CENTER

Regional Centers NLACRC is one of 21 regional centers in California, which are established and operate pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Welf. & Inst. Code[2] §4500 et seq.) (“Lanterman Act”). Regional centers are private, non-profit corporations under contract with the Department of Developmental Services (“DDS”) to serve as local points of contact for individuals and families eligible to receive regional center services. §4620 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

MEHRAN JAVAHERIAN VS FARID MORADI

Defendants argue “the only issues presented by Plaintiff in the MSJ for adjudication were whether Moradi’s capital call request was justified and whether his requests to the LPs’ members was necessary.” Defendants argue this court should not have granted summary judgment based on a finding that the capital call funding was not a condition precedent for payment of the LP investment, as this argument was raised for the first time in plaintiff’s reply.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CONSERVATORSHIP OF JAIME CORONA

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Monique Langhorne, Dept. B

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

ROBBIE DAVON WOODSON VS SHARON OLDHAM, ET AL.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER: Department 2 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 reassi...

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2019

GARDNER V. CITY OF COSTA MESA, ET AL.

Hospital contends Plaintiff was escorted to Hospital, a 24-hour acute care hospital authorized to detain a person for 72-hour treatment and evaluation pursuant to the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000, et seq.), and Hospital is statutorily immune from Plaintiff’s cause of action for false imprisonment. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act governs the involuntary treatment of the mentally ill in California. (Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1008.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

CONSERVATORSHIP OF JOSE BRAVO CONTRERAS

PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

ROBERT S MARKMAN VS COLLEGE HOSPITAL GROUP INC ET AL

The FAC alleges that CHG did not comply with the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“5150”), specifically, because it failed to advise Markman in writing of his right to request to be evaluated or treated by a mental professional of his choice at a facility of his choice. (FAC ¶¶ 3–4.) Markman also alleges that CHG failed to train its admission staff to provide this advisement. (FAC ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARY TRUE

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Monique Langhorne, Dept. B Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

IN RE: CONSERVATORSHIP OF FINDLEY

Findley first argues that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the “LPS” Act) emphasizes the preferences given to family members to act in the best interest of families, and that the appointment of a conservator is subject to a list of priorities set forth in Probate Code section 1812, which favors family members. Findley argues that until family members are found unable, unwilling, or unfit to serve as conservators, the Department does not have standing to petition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

# 8. Josefa Uriostegui v. American Iron & Metal, et al. Case No.: 19STCV17793 Matter on calendar for: Demurrer to FAC (x5); Motion to Strike (x6) Tentative ruling: Background Plaintiff Josefa Uriostegui worked as a lab technician at Elite Optical Company from 1987 through 2017. During that time she performed various tasks such a...

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF RYAN ROBERT TRUMBLE

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2019

  • Judge

    Raymond Guadagni

  • County

    Napa County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF RYAN ROBERT TRUMBLE

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF JONATHAN BERNARD

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

# 8. Josefa Uriostegui v. American Iron & Metal, et al. Case No.: 19STCV17793 Matter on calendar for: Motion to Quash Tentative ruling: Background Plaintiff Josefa Uriostegui worked as a lab technician at Elite Optical Company from 1987 through 2017. During that time she performed various tasks such as blocking, grinding, fining...

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JASON GARDNER VS CERRITOS COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Involuntary treatment of the mentally ill in California is governed by the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“LPS Act”). Under the LPS Act a designated facility, like HOSPITAL, may detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if there is “probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5150.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JASON GARDNER VS CERRITOS COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Immunity Involuntary treatment of the mentally ill in California is governed by the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“LPS Act”). Under the LPS Act a designated facility, like HOSPITAL, may detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if there is “probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5150.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CONSERVATORSHIP OF EVERETT QUINN

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Monique Langhorne, Dept. B Malina Kindt v. Concesionaria Vuela Compania

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

ROBERT S MARKMAN VS COLLEGE HOSPITAL GROUP INC ET AL

The FAC alleges that CHG did not comply with the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“5150”), specifically, because it failed to advise Markman in writing of his right to request to be evaluated or treated by a mental professional of his choice at a facility of his choice. (FAC ¶¶ 3–4.) Markman also alleges that CHG failed to train its admission staff to provide this advisement. (FAC ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

CONSERVATORSHIP OF BRAYDEN LEE PAYNE

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Monique Langhorne, Dept. B

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF CHERYL ABBOTT

PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF APPOINTMENT OF LPS CONSERVATOR APPEARANCE REQUIRED CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Monique Langhorne, Dept. B

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

MCNALLY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The County argues the alleged unlawful statements attributed to the County and its employees arise from protected activity because the statements purportedly made to Plaintiff regarding the potential for an extended involuntary civil commitment were made in the context of evaluating and assessing him as part of Plaintiff's statutorily authorized involuntary civil commitment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act ("LPS Act") and the County's statutorily mandated evaluation of him pursuant to the same statutory

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MCNALLY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The County argues the alleged unlawful statements attributed to the County and its employees arise from protected activity because the statements purportedly made to Plaintiff regarding the potential for an extended involuntary civil commitment were made in the context of evaluating and assessing him as part of Plaintiff's statutorily authorized involuntary civil commitment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act ("LPS Act") and the County's statutorily mandated evaluation of him pursuant to the same statutory

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MCNALLY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The County argues the alleged unlawful statements attributed to the County and its employees arise from protected activity because the statements purportedly made to Plaintiff regarding the potential for an extended involuntary civil commitment were made in the context of evaluating and assessing him as part of Plaintiff's statutorily authorized involuntary civil commitment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act ("LPS Act") and the County's statutorily mandated evaluation of him pursuant to the same statutory

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.