Marriage between spouses of the same sex is legal and authorized in California, based on U.S. Constitutional law, California Constitutional law, and applicable case law. Because of the issue’s procedural history, there are several cases and dates relevant to the validity of a same-sex marriage in California:
The California Supreme Court held that:
Laws denying same-sex couples the opportunity to marry were subject to strict scrutiny for two reasons:
Statutory “domestic partnerships” providing same-sex couples “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” as a “marriage” under state law nonetheless failed to accord same sex-couples the “same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage”.
In response to In re Marriage Cases, in 2008 California voters passed Proposition 8, amending Article I of the California Constitution to state that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591
Series of Federal and California state court rulings that resulted in the invalidation of Prop 8 and the legalization of same-sex marriage in California.
After the Federal District court invalidated Prop 8 as violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, California officials announced their decision not to appeal.
The California Supreme Court held Prop 8’s proponents had the right to conduct their own appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision.
After the Federal District Court invalidated Prop 8, California’s Attorney General Jerry Brown announced he would not appeal the decision, extending that pronouncement when he became governor in conjunction with Attorney General Kamala Harris. Prop 8’s official proponents (ProtectMarriage.com, including named-plaintiff Dennis Hollingsworth) appealed.
Cert. quest to California Supreme Court to determine “whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”
The Ninth Circuit requested the California Supreme Court determine whether Prop 8’s proponents had the authority to appeal the District Court’s decision.
California Supreme Court held Prop 8 proponents had standing to challenge the District Court’s invalidation of Prop 8
“[W]hen the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.”
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the California Supreme Court, stating that the official proponents lacked standing to appeal the District Court’s order, thereby rendering the District Court’s decision valid and thus invalidating Prop 8.
“The Court does not question California's sovereign right to maintain an initiative process, or the right of initiative proponents to defend their initiatives in California courts. But standing in federal court is a question of federal law, not state law. No matter its reasons, the fact that a State thinks a private party should have standing to seek relief for a generalized grievance cannot override this Court's settled law to the contrary. Article IIIs requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in the federal system of separated powers. States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 695-96 (2013).
The decision in Reynolds v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1044 “is also outdated. Recent authority holds that same-sex couples who agree to have children by way of surrogacy and/or in vitro fertilization are "parents" within the meaning of the Uniform Parentage Act, without any requirement of a formal adoption. (See Elise B. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108, 113 [which held that a woman who agreed to raise children with her lesbian partner, although neither the birth mother nor a genetic contributor to the child, was legally the child's parent]; and see K.M. v. E.G. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 130, 134. ) Plaintiffs' allegations of parentage in ¶2 of their Complaint are therefore sufficient.” Michelle L Kriethe Vs. Los Robles Hospital And Medical Center, 56-2009-00347041-CU-MM-SIM (https://trellis.law/ruling/56-2009-00347041-CU-MM-SIM/michelle-l-kriethe-vs-los-robles-hospital-and-medical-center/20091002a5d0c8).
“[Therapist Defendant argues that Defendant did not violate California Civil Code §43.93(c) because] though not legally married, they lived as though they were and there is a statutory exception for spouses within a marriage. (Under §43.93(c), there is an exception for sexual contact between spouses. Specifically, the statute says that "No cause of action shall exist between spouses within a marriage." D is essentially asking the court to treat P and D as spouses even though they were not legally married at the time. Since same sex marriage was not legal until June 2013, D argues, there was no possibility for them to be married for most of their relationship. D does not cite any authority by which a court has determined that same sex partners should be considered "spouses" under the statute. While the spirit of the law might have been intended to protect the type of situation we have here – long term committed relationships involving same-sex couples – the statute seems clear that it is to protect spouses only. The Legislature could have included "long term same sex couples" in (c). Such language would have been amorphous and perhaps not very workable, but still the Legislature did not see fit to carve out from the statute relationships other than 'spousal' relationships.) Lisa Turner Vs. Kellee Clougherty, 56-2014-00452255-CU-BC-VTA (https://trellis.law/ruling/56-2014-00452255-CU-BC-VTA/lisa-turner-vs-kellee-clougherty/201612088aeaa7).
California Code of Civil Procedure §706.051 -- governing liability of the family of a judgment debtor -- “does not provide a meaningful definition of the term “family.” Instead, it merely provides that “family … includes the spouse or former spouse of the judgment debtor.” CCP §706.051. It does not limit the definition to spouses, and in fact does not require co-habitation. Whether or not “family” was intended to cover same-sex partners, the evidence submitted by debtor indicates that he and Mr. Casson have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years, and apparently hold themselves out as partners. Whether or not they have filed any domestic partner forms, or participated in a commitment ceremony (or actual marriage ceremony), this court concludes that the “family” under CCP §706.051 includes a dependent same-sex partner when the indicia of a marriage exist.” Anderson Vs. Catlett, (12/11/2013) (republication of court decision) (https://trellis.law/view/WFOcp9Nsy5eoEjrn1MA9rCFggfzGaM2RwqX-Xx-hQP0)
“Family Code § 2320 has no application to this matter and does not establish a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The statute states as follows: ‘(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) [referring to same sex marriages, not relevant here], a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be entered unless one of the parties to the marriage has been a resident of this state for six months and of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months next preceding the filing of the petition.’” Sharon Louise MacDonell V. Shipping Solutions, LP, Et Al., 18CV338328 (https://trellis.law/ruling/18CV338328/sharon-louise-macdonell-v-shipping-solutions-lp-et-al/20190822579234).
The marriage in Ferry was held to be “facially invalid” because the parties were a same-sex couple who could not have a good faith belief in the validity of their marriage since such marriages were not legal at the time. To require adherence to all the requirements of Section 297(b) in order for putative status to apply would ignore the case authority that the Court consider the subjective belief of the spouse. The California Supreme Court, in Ceja v.
STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL
BC658421
Mar 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
To qualify for a domestic partnership, the couple must be either members of the same sex, or one or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act. It also states “persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age.” Family Code § 297.
STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL
BC658421
Sep 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Whether or not “family” was intended to cover same-sex partners, the evidence submitted by debtor indicates that he and Mr. Casson have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years, and apparently hold themselves out as partners. Whether or not they have filed any domestic partner forms, or participated in a commitment ceremony (or actual marriage ceremony), this court concludes that the “family” under CCP §706.051 includes a dependent same-sex partner when the indicia of a marriage exist.
Anderson vs. Catlett
Dec 11, 2013
Orange County, CA
Whether or not “family” was intended to cover same-sex partners, the evidence submitted by debtor indicates that he and Mr. Casson have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years, and apparently hold themselves out as partners. Whether or not they have filed any domestic partner forms, or participated in a commitment ceremony (or actual marriage ceremony), this court concludes that the “family” under CCP §706.051 includes a dependent same-sex partner when the indicia of a marriage exist.
ANDERSON VS. CATLETT
15.
Dec 11, 2013
Orange County, CA
A domestic partnership shall be established in California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division and satisfy other requirements (i.e., not currently married to another, not blood-related, over the age of 18, and are members of the same sex). (Family Code, §297(b).) Here, there is no indication that the parties registered as a domestic partnership.
BARTOLOMEIO SGAMBATI VS DAVID HUYNH
18BBCV00016
Apr 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
One of the requirements for a domestic partnership is that either: 1) both persons are members of the same sex; or 2) at least one meets the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act. Id., § 297(b)(3). Persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age. Id. The Court finds that De Luna has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she is Decedent’s surviving spouse or domestic partner.
MAXINE MARIAH MEDINA ET AL VS CITY OF EL MONTE ET AL
BC583814
Dec 27, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
In its Reply, Defendant argues that the DFEH complaint does not include claims based on sexual orientation and same sex marriage. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to address this issue. Legal authorities and analysis: A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings ifthe complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Cal. Code Civ. Code §438(c)(1)(b)(ii).)
LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1904220
Jun 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
During the course, Thompson discussed a United States Supreme Court decision that had been decided recently regarding same sex marriage and Thompson’s questions to her developed only the side against legalizing same-sex marriage, according to Krista E. Krista E. felt she was not treated the same as other students.
RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS BIERSMITH
RIC1825186
Jul 09, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Defendant also notes that it is Plaintiff who misrepresents that she was a “domestic partner of years” as it is legally impossible for Plaintiff and the Decedent to have been domestic partners. Prior to January 1, 2020, domestic partners was only available to same sex partners and opposite sex couples over the age of 62. As the Decedent passed away before the passing of CA Senate Bill 30, there is no legally cognizable relationship between Ms. Mendez and the late Mr. Montano.
YAMIRA MONTANO MENDEZ VS MARIA MONTANO, ET AL.
20VECV00368
Sep 04, 2020
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
It is undisputed that Plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage to a same sex spouse. (UMF No. 4.) As such, she was a member of a protected class under FEHA. Defendant argues that during her deposition, Plaintiff did not establish that she was harassed on the basis of sexual orientation or her same sex marriage.
LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1904220
Aug 31, 2021
Riverside County, CA
[The court recognizes this is a same-sex couple, and the court’s first name reference toFL2103123 the litigants is in no way a sign of disrespect, but rather a way to identify each party.] No response was received by Heather. Lisa filed a reply declaration on September 8. Heather’s non-action after receiving proper notice of this hearing is viewed as a concession to Lisa’s request.
FL2103123
Oct 04, 2022
Marin County, CA
[The court recognizes this is a same-sex couple, and the court’s first name reference toFL2103123 the litigants is in no way a sign of disrespect, but rather a way to identify each party.] No response was received by Heather. Lisa filed a reply declaration on September 8. Heather’s non-action after receiving proper notice of this hearing is viewed as a concession to Lisa’s request.
FL2103123
Sep 30, 2022
Marin County, CA
[The court recognizes this is a same-sex couple, and the court’s first name reference toFL2103123 the litigants is in no way a sign of disrespect, but rather a way to identify each party.] No response was received by Heather. Lisa filed a reply declaration on September 8. Heather’s non-action after receiving proper notice of this hearing is viewed as a concession to Lisa’s request.
FL2103123
Sep 29, 2022
Marin County, CA
[The court recognizes this is a same-sex couple, and the court’s first name reference toFL2103123 the litigants is in no way a sign of disrespect, but rather a way to identify each party.] No response was received by Heather. Lisa filed a reply declaration on September 8. Heather’s non-action after receiving proper notice of this hearing is viewed as a concession to Lisa’s request.
FL2103123
Oct 05, 2022
Marin County, CA
[The court recognizes this is a same-sex couple, and the court’s first name reference toFL2103123 the litigants is in no way a sign of disrespect, but rather a way to identify each party.] No response was received by Heather. Lisa filed a reply declaration on September 8. Heather’s non-action after receiving proper notice of this hearing is viewed as a concession to Lisa’s request.
FL2103123
Oct 01, 2022
Marin County, CA
[The court recognizes this is a same-sex couple, and the court’s first name reference toFL2103123 the litigants is in no way a sign of disrespect, but rather a way to identify each party.] No response was received by Heather. Lisa filed a reply declaration on September 8. Heather’s non-action after receiving proper notice of this hearing is viewed as a concession to Lisa’s request.
FL2103123
Oct 03, 2022
Marin County, CA
[The court recognizes this is a same-sex couple, and the court’s first name reference toFL2103123 the litigants is in no way a sign of disrespect, but rather a way to identify each party.] No response was received by Heather. Lisa filed a reply declaration on September 8. Heather’s non-action after receiving proper notice of this hearing is viewed as a concession to Lisa’s request.
FL2103123
Oct 02, 2022
Marin County, CA
The complaint alleges Plaintiff Fox is gay and that Plaintiff Villarba is his same-sex partner. The complaint alleges that Fox was walking between his residence and a local laundromat on May 2, 2018 when Defendant, unprovoked and without consent, intentionally and unlawfully struck Fox in the head with a bottle or other hard object and threatened, abused, harassed, and intimidated Fox while he was on the ground. On August 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to have RFAs deemed admitted.
KENNETH PAUL FOX ET AL VS REDMOND JAMES ONEAL
BC720634
Sep 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
It is undisputed that Plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage to a same sex spouse. (UMF No. 4.) As such, she was a member of a protected class under FEHA. However, Plaintiff has not presented any admissible evidence showing that she was subjected to harassment by employees of the District or that any harassment that occurred was based on her sexual orientation.
LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1904220
Aug 29, 2021
Riverside County, CA
It is undisputed that Plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage to a same sex spouse. (UMF No. 4.) As such, she was a member of a protected class under FEHA. However, Plaintiff has not presented any admissible evidence showing that she was subjected to harassment by employees of the District or that any harassment that occurred was based on her sexual orientation.
LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1904220
Aug 28, 2021
Riverside County, CA
It is undisputed that Plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage to a same sex spouse. (UMF No. 4.) As such, she was a member of a protected class under FEHA. However, Plaintiff has not presented any admissible evidence showing that she was subjected to harassment by employees of the District or that any harassment that occurred was based on her sexual orientation.
LAZZARINI VS ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1904220
Aug 30, 2021
Riverside County, CA
The statute states as follows: “(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) [referring to same sex marriages, not relevant here], a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be entered unless one of the parties to the marriage has been a resident of this state for six months and of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months next preceding the filing of the petition.”
SHARON LOUISE MACDONELL V. SHIPPING SOLUTIONS, LP, ET AL.
18CV338328
Aug 22, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
The allegations are not the parties were married in violation of the law, but that their partnership was akin to a marriage; there was nothing illegal about being in a non-marital same sex partnership. Therefore, absent other grounds for a demurrer (e.g., failure to meet heightened pleading standard), the court OVERRULES the demurrer as to the fraud COA.
ANN MARIE GROVES VS TERESA A VIVAR
23PSCV01031
Sep 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint alleges: defendants own and/or manage the premises at issue (¶ 3); defendants engaged in a pattern of annoyance and harassment of plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and same sex marital status (¶10); defendants breached plaintiffs’ right to quiet enjoyment of the premises (¶11); on the basis of plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and same sex marital status, defendants entered the premises without notice, installed cameras, shut off utilities and attempted to demolish the property (¶18); and plaintiffs
MARTHA ESPINOZA SUAREZ, ET AL. VS WESLEY KAWECKI, ET AL.
19STCV34975
Jun 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Recent authority holds that same-sex couples who agree to have children by way of surrogacy and/or in vitro fertilization are "parents" within the meaning of the Uniform Parentage Act, without any requirement of a formal adoption. (See Elise B. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108, 113 [which held that a woman who agreed to raise children with her lesbian partner, although neither the birth mother nor a genetic contributor to the child, was legally the child's parent]; and see K.M. v.
MICHELLE L KRIETHE VS. LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
56-2009-00347041-CU-MM-SIM
Oct 02, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
The court held that the practice could be regarded as intentional discrimination against same-sex couples, under the Unruh Act, only if it were established that the married-couple requirement was adopted or applied specifically for the purpose of discriminating against same-sex couples – as opposed to being a facially neutral policy that happened to work to the disadvantage of that group.
CHRIS TRAINA VS. APPLE, INC.
C22-01970
Feb 02, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
The complaint alleges Plaintiff Fox is gay and that Plaintiff Villarba is his same-sex partner. The complaint also alleges that Fox was walking between his residence and a local laundromat on May 2, 2018 when Defendant, unprovoked and without consent, intentionally and unlawfully struck Fox in the head with a bottle or other hard object and threatened, abused, harassed, and intimidated Fox while he was on the ground.
KENNETH PAUL FOX ET AL VS REDMOND JAMES ONEAL
BC720634
Oct 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
As part of this program, athletes providing a urine sample in the presence of a same sex monitor. (Ibid.) Student athletes challenged the drug testing program as a violation of their right to privacy. (Id. at pp. 8-9.)
C. BONHAGE, ET AL VS H. RAWSON
2014-1-CV-271558
May 31, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Since same sex marriage was not legal until June 2013, D argues, there was no possibility for them to be married for most of their relationship. D does not cite any authority by which a court has determined that same sex partners should be considered "spouses" under the statute. While the spirit of the law might have been intended to protect the type of situation we have here – long term committed relationships involving same-sex couples – the statute seems clear that it is to protect spouses only.
LISA TURNER VS. KELLEE CLOUGHERTY
56-2014-00452255-CU-BC-VTA
Dec 08, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Specifically, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts which could show that Defendants conduct was because of their status as female or a same-sex married couple. For example, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants ever made any comments about their gender, sexual orientation, or marital status, nor do Plaintiffs allege any facts from which one could infer that any conduct was based on any of these characteristics.
MARY BALSER ET AL VS INTERINS EXCHANGE OF THE AUTO CULB ET A
BC697689
Oct 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
More specifically, Jesus alleges that Alejandro and Eugene were romantic and business partners who could not legally marry prior to the 2014 change in California law allowing same sex marriage.
JESUS ASAEL HERRERA LOPEZ VS EUGENE LA PIETRA, ET AL.
21STCV29304
Oct 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MOVING PARTY: Defendants Wendy Chang, Cynthia Loo and Bryant Yang RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff James Li in pro per STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s application to be appointed to three State Bar Committees because Plaintiff was publicly critical of the Chinese-American legal community’s support to overturn the ban against same-sex marriage.
JAMES LI VS WENDY CHANG ET AL
BC630450
Jul 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs are a same-sex couple. Defendant Helpmates Staffing Service (“Helpmates”) filed the instant motion to compel arbitration on February 25, 2021. Plaintiffs stipulated to arbitration with Helpmates. Remaining Defendants Amway Corp., Alticor Inc., Nutrilite Products, Inc., and Fabian Alvarez (hereafter collectively referred to as “Alticor”) oppose Helpmates’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Joinder.
MIRTHA SALGADO, ET AL. VS AMWAY CORP., A CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV48188
May 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Jesus alleges that Alejandro and Eugene were romantic and business partners who could not legally marry prior to the 2014 change in California law allowing same sex marriage.
JESUS ASAEL HERRERA LOPEZ VS EUGENE LA PIETRA, ET AL.
21STCV29304
Dec 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Schwarzenegger (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F.3d 1147, a same sex couple challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8, an initiative providing that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” They served requests for document production on the proponents of Prop 8, requesting: “All versions of any documents that constitute communications referring to Proposition 8, between you and any third party, including, without limitation, members of the public or the media.”
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH MISSION INDIANS OF THE SANTA YNEZ RESERVATION CALIFORNIA VS LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY
20CV01967
Apr 06, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
California the Court held that same sex couples and heterosexual couples seeking to marry are similarly situated for equal protection analysis.
M. VS KOMROSKY
CVSW2306224
Feb 23, 2024
Riverside County, CA
(1) SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) RE: COMPLAINT; (2) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Defendants Wendy Chang, Cynthia Loo and Bryant Yang RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Plaintiff James Li STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s application to be appointed to three State Bar Committees because Plaintiff was publicly critical of the Chinese-American legal community’s support to overturn the ban against same-sex marriage.
JAMES LI VS WENDY CHANG ET AL
BC630450
Feb 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff asserts that “Albeno has multiple roommates, including [Kristh], [London], and Vianey Samaniego Chavez who is [Kristh’s] same-sex spouse.” (Motion at p. 6.)
KING BRETT LAUTER VS CINDY MARGARITA NAVAS ALBENO
22CV05108
May 31, 2023
Santa Barbara County, CA
DEMURRER TO 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, line 1, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Off Calendar, matter assigned to Judge Kramer. =(302/CWW)...
BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
CGC08481908
Mar 16, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention And Proposed Proposition 8 Official Proponent Hak-Shing William Tam'S Appendix Of Non-California Authorities Set for hearing on Monday, September 28, 2009, line 5, INTERVENOR HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Motion for Leave to File a Complaint in Intervention. Off Calendar. CCP section 100...
BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
CGC08481908
Sep 28, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
DEMURRER TO 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, February 18, 2010, line 5, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Continued to March 4, 2010 to be heard by Judge Woolard. Furthermore, plaintiff to provide courtesy copy of opposition with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. =(302/AJR)...
BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
CGC08481908
Feb 18, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, October 29, 2009, line 11, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. DEMURRER SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF WERE DECIDED IN STRAUSS V. HORTON (2009) 46 CAL.4TH 364. NO REASO...
BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
CGC08481908
Oct 29, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
DEMURRER TO 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, March 4, 2010, line 2, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Demurrer sustained without leave to amend. The allegations raised in the third amended complaint were decided in Strauss vs. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364. No reasonable probability that defect ...
BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
CGC08481908
Mar 04, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
