What is a Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Recent Rulings on Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

(Motion p. 19-20.) As an initial matter, the City agrees that it will not enforce AMC § 4.05.100.0115, which requires immediate warrantless access to a STR; will not issue citations for failure to grant immediate access pending a trial in this case, pursuant to AMC § 4.05.140.020.0201(6); and will offer the City Council amendments to remove language providing for the issuance of citations for failure to grant immediate access.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation. SCE argues that SARVS is not entitled to compensation for lost goodwill inasmuch as any such compensation would amount to duplicate recovery under § 1263.510(a)(4) since any alleged goodwill is tied up in the value of the land being taken.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issues 1, 3 and 4 (contract-based claims), with leave to amend as to Plaintiffs T-12 and HRG only. The motion is MOOT as to Issue 2, which seeks adjudication of the Third Cause of Action, which Plaintiffs dismissed as to Count 1, under the General Contract. [ROA 2604.]

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

The hearings on the applications are continued to 7/19/19 to allow the applicants to provide supplemental information regarding the foregoing factors. The supplemental information should be submitted by 7/12/19. No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

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

The Court has considered the administrative and the supplemental records, the papers of the parties and the arguments of counsel, and it has admitted the administrative record into evidence but declined to receive the supplemental record in evidence as it was unnecessary to its determination. Accordingly, the Court now: ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES that: 1.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Exhibit 4b to Tang’s declaration, however, reflects that the parties’ lease agreement encompasses the premises located at “901 S. Stimson Ave. & 16010, 16020, and 16030 Phoenix Drive” in “Los Angeles” and that the stated base rent of $43,153.00, as per Paragraph 1.5 of the parties’ agreement, applied to the entirety of the foregoing premises. The court notes that Plaintiff’s related case, Case No. 19PSCV00905, pertains to 16030 Phoenix Drive, City of Industry, CA, 91745 only.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

Plaintiff has failed to advise the court whether or not Zaragoza turned over the vehicles titles identified in Exhibit C. The translation contained in Exhibit E to Plaintiff’s declaration incorrectly identifies LAH as the party to the loan (but with Zaragoza’s signature). Prejudgment interest commences on the date of breach, not the date the loans were made. (Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc. (2015) 2 Cal.App.5th 279, 293.)

  • 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.

After the checks had been sent to Round Table, Plaintiff learned that the vehicle price was to be paid directly to the selling dealer, and that only the broker fee was to be paid directly to Round Table. Round Table cashed the checks and refuse to return the monies to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

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

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • 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

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

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

The Loan was subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. Lopez has defaulted on the Loan by failing to make all required payments due thereunder. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Lopez and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Contract On January 16, 2020, Lopez’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for March 23, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Again, Ye is identified as Hummingbird’s Chief Executive. (See Supplemental Statement of the Case, 2:1-3; Plaintiff’s Supplemental Decl., ¶1.) It is unclear, then, how Ye would be personally liable as Plaintiff’s employer. Although Plaintiff addresses Ye’s personal liability in 2:5-11 of the Supplemental Statement of the Case, the statements are not corroborated by Plaintiff’s declaration.

  • 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.

Background Plaintiff YesLender, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff provides working capital to qualified small businesses—referred to as “merchants”—by purchasing a portion of a merchant’s future receivables in exchange for a cash advance. Plaintiff provides these merchants with a lump-sum cash payment in exchange for a negotiated amount of said merchant’s daily receivables, until the agreed-upon remittance amount is fully remitted to Plaintiff (usually 6-12 months).

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

The motion has been withdrawn as to Issues Nos. 2 and 15. The motion is otherwise deemed moot. 2. Defendant Emanate Health fka Citrus Valley Health Partners Inc.’s Motion to Seal Confidential Documents Filed by Plaintiff in Opposition to Emanate Health’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. Background Plaintiff Citrus Obstetrics & Gynecology Medical Associates, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Yoo agreed to amend the Statement of Information for CJME, Inc. (“CJME”), which E. Yoo had incorporated on November 13, 2017. Since CJME was not actively involved in business, Plaintiff and E. Yoo agreed that CJME would be used in operation of the Mugs. In amending CJME, E. Yoo remained as the CEO while Plaintiff was named as its CFO and Secretary. On September 1, 2018, Mugs opened for business.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KAREN KHOSTEGHYAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, A PUBLIC UTILITY, ET AL.

Amended pleadings and amendments to pleadings (a) Contents of motion A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Counsel for defendant filed a Proposed Judgment the same day, seeking attorneys’ fees pursuant to a subsequent motion. On February 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed an Objection to the Proposed Judgment on the ground that the lease in question had been modified to strike the Attorneys’ Fees clause, attaching an unverified document purporting to delete the clause. However, no declaration of the any witness authenticated that document.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Chen, et al. (19PSCV00800) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling The hearing on Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to September 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Background Plaintiff Changliang Dai (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is an investor from China. In or around March 2018, Plaintiff met Thomas Chen (“Chen”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

To be admissible, a declaration made out-of-state for use in California must state that the statements were made under penalty of California law in material compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5. Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 618. As such, the default judgment is procedurally defective and lacks admissible evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 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.