What are taxable possessory interests?

Useful Rulings on Taxable Possessory Interests

Recent Rulings on Taxable Possessory Interests

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

C, 146:2-10, 148:8-13 and Exh. 107; ¶5, Exh. D, 126:8-16, 135:6-16 and 181:5-12.) Exhibit 107 is inadmissible based upon the court’s ruling on Emanate’s evidentiary objections; at any rate, it merely indicates that Tang asked Kleinbart if CVPP would support a group formation, not vice versa. Plaintiff, moreover, has not provided any deposition testimony from Tang as to when Kleinbart allegedly initiated the idea of a “competing” group.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Merck & Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 477.) First, Plaintiff simply restates the facts of his intentional misrepresentation claim to support his negligent misrepresentation claim. (FAC ¶¶ 71-73.) These facts do not support a claim for negligent misrepresentation because Plaintiff fails to state how Mr. Czuker lacked a reasonable basis to believe his representations were true or how Mr. Czuker made the statements with the intent to induce Plaintiff’s reliance, thereby damaging Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

Merck & Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 477.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s statement that the owner’s passing canceled the agreement was not true, but he fails to state why Defendant could not have reasonably believed this statement to be true. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55.) Plaintiff also fails to state how he relied on this statement in a manner that caused him damage. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state a claim for negligent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

OLGUIN V. CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING, INC., ET AL.

Medtronics, Inc. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 150, 154; Canon U.S.A. v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 [“where the invalidity of the class allegations is revealed on the face of the complaint, and/or by matters subject to judicial notice, the class issue may be properly disposed of by demurrer or motion to strike”]; Pinnacle Holdings, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

GOLDWATER SAG HOLDINGS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COPORATION VS YUK SIN YUEN, ET AL.

Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124-1125.) However, the court construes this motion as one made on mandatory grounds because defendants’ counsel filed an attorney affidavit of fault as part of the original motion. He also directly discussed the mandatory grounds for relief in the reply brief, obviating the failure to do so in the original memorandum of points and authorities and notice of motion. (See Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1127.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTOPHER FAGAN VS JUSTIN HILL, ET AL.

) · “Moreover, the Company has yet to file a tax return for FY 2018 or to issue a K-1 to Mr. Fagan.” (Id. at ¶ 45.) · “Mr. Hill and Mr. Terranova have made expenditures with funds owned by ACFC and have usurped business opportunities that belonged to and would have benefited ACFC. The amount expensed and usurped by Mr. Hill and Mr. Terranova is unknown and cannot be fully ascertained without an accounting.” (Id. at ¶ 46.) · “Hill/Terranova denied Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUZ MARIA BRISENO VS KEVIN RUMMEL

Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 25, 29.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that as her agent, Rummel owed Plaintiff a duty of care, loyalty, accounting, confidentiality, and full disclosure, and a duty to act fairly, in good faith, and with fair dealing. (FAC ¶ 25.) Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a fiduciary duty. Defendants also contend that there are no allegations that Plaintiff was damaged. (Demurrer at p. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

HECTOR OCHOA VS JET DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.

Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 273.) “’Essentially a sliding scale is invoked which disregards the regularity of the procedural process of the contract formation, that creates the terms, in proportion to the greater harshness or unreasonableness of the substantive terms themselves.’ [Citation].

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

In connection with the eighth cause of action in the SAC, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) Plaintiff and Gaumont were parties to the Termination Agreement which is a valid and binding contract (Id. at ¶ 104); (2) Moving Defendant was aware of the Termination Agreement and its terms (Id. at ¶ 105); (3) Moving Defendant intended to influence, direct, or cause Gaumont to commit the breaches because Moving Defendant knew it would benefit from such breaches (Id. at ¶ 107); (4) Moving Defendant benefitted by directing

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 121.) Judicial estoppel applies where (1) the same party has taken two positions, (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings, (3) the party was successfully in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true), (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent, and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake. (Rea v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

632 N PALM DRIVE, LLC VS ADAN PENA, ET AL.

Gold also cites paragraphs 107, 108, 111-14. These paragraphs relate to Gold’s alleged reliance on statements contained in the Notice provided by LINCH for DESIGN and the harm that Gold suffered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LANA SIEU NGU VS CITY BAIL BONDS ET AL

Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124 (Luri).) “Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,’ the court has discretion to allow relief from a ‘judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against’ a party or his or her attorney.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JANE BETTS VS PAULA KANE

. (¶¶ 107, 113.) This does not satisfy the “high bar” that the California Supreme Court has set for “what can constitute severe distress.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1376 [discussing Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1051].) “Severe emotional distress” means “emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.” (Wong, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at 1376.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIELLA AFSHAR VS MICHAEL OBENG MD ET AL

., Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 845, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493, fn. omitted.) Thus, the Kelley court was considering the burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. To meet such a burden, the Kelley court concluded the declaration of the defendant's expert had to be detailed and with foundation. (Kelley, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 524, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

LORENA GARCIA ET AL VS JAMES WOOD PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 861 [107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 841, 24 P.3d 493].) “[A] defendant moving for summary judgment [must] present evidence, and not simply point out that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Id. at p. 854, fn. omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BALDOMERO ENRIQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners, (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 860, 868. In short, the court substitutes its judgment for the agency’s regarding the basic facts of what happened, when, why, and the credibility of witnesses. Guymon v. Board of Accountancy, (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 1010, 1013-16.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE VS. BECERRA

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 165, 169.) A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden to show the plaintiff’s action has no merit. It may do this by demonstrating the action has no merit, that plaintiff cannot prove an element of his or her claim, or that it has a complete defense entitling it to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DUBOC VS. IRVINE COMPANY, LLC

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 165, 169.) As to plaintiff Leonard, Defendants contend summary judgment is proper because Leonard’s discovery responses indicate he has not obtained any scientific test results as to the presence of mold in his units. Defendants cite Geffcken v. D'Andrea (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1298 and Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 392 for their contention that the presence of mold must be established through scientific tests.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MICHELLE VEGA VS KIPP LA SCHOOLS

(Vega Depo at p. 107, 123.) Vega also recalled Duarte-Phan making a comment, as she was heading out or coming back from leave, in which Duarte-Phan noted that Vega had “been out a lot.” (Vega Depo at p. 120.) El-Amin also remembered an instance in which a teacher was caught cheating on her time-cards, and, while disciplined, was not terminated. (El-Amin Depo at pp. 87–88.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DAN SAXON PALMER, JR. VS GEOFF PALMER, ET AL.

(EAC ¶ 107.) This suggested that Dan wanted declaratory relief concerning the written partnership agreements between Geoff and the third parties because Dan alleged that the partnership agreements were “part-written.” In the FAXC, Dan seeks a judicial determination that he “is entitled to 7% of everything that Geoff receives regarding the Palmer-Saugus and Solemint Heights properties.” (FAXC ¶ 139.) There is no material inconsistency here.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PENNINGTON VS SURFSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL APC

Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 CA4th 267, 275-276, 132 CR2d 116, 123] (Chin, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Emp. Lit. (TRG 2019) ¶ 18:621.4 (emphasis in original, but formatting changed).) However, Plaintiff's argument falls on considerably weaker ground when the facts of this particular case are considered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GREGORY WARD VS ISABEL M. COATS

County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 115. However, after the Court continued the hearing to July 9, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, Plaintiff filed his separate statement on April 10, 2020. Thus, the Court will address the merits of the motion. Merits Even viewing Plaintiff’s Opposition in the most favorable light, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the causes of action in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

CP MARGUERITE MV, LLC VS. O’NEILL

(See ¶50 and ¶58 of FACC [ROA No. 107] and ¶27 within Cross-Defendant’s Exhibit 5 [ROA No. 444]). Similarly, while Cross-Complainant submits evidence which indicates it has been damaged by a diminution in rental value, (¶5, ¶19 and ¶28 of O’Neill Declaration; ¶8-¶10 of Homes Declaration and ¶3 and ¶5 of Smith Declaration), this element of damage is barred by collateral estoppel.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SYLVIA NOLAND VS JOSE LUIS NAZAR

County of Los Angeles (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107, 121. Judicial estoppel applies when: the same party has taken one position in one action and a totally inconsistent position in another; the court accepted the party’s first position; the first position was not taken due to fraud, mistake, or ignorance; and the party gained an unfair advantage. Aguilar v. Lerner (2004) 32 Cal.4th 974, 986.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JAMES PARKER VS MM ENTERPRISES USA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

(SAC ¶ 107 & Ex. A, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff further alleges that “Despite making a demand for payment of his legal fees and expenses related to the dispute over his Agreement and this action, the MedMen Entity Defendants have ignored the demand and refused to reimburse Plaintiff for any of his legal fees and expenses in direct contravention of the above quoted provision in the Letter Agreement.” (SAC ¶ 110.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 159     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.