Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
There is an Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) (Ins. Code ยง 790, et seq.). But there is no private civil cause of action against an insurer under UIPA. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 (1988).
However, โMoradi-Shalal does not bar the claim under the UCL.โ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2010) 178 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085.) โWe have made it clear that while a plaintiff may not use the UCL to โplead aroundโ an absolute bar to relief, the UIPA does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the UIPA.โ (Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 283-284; see also Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 182-183; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43; Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 565.)
โ[T]he UCL, in Business and Professions Code ยง 17200, defines "unfair competition" to include "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business" acts or practices, and "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising." There can be no doubt that false advertising is a recognized basis for suit under the UCL both expressly as provided in the statutes and in case law. (Zhang v. Superior Court (2010)178 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1089 citing Shersher v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1494-1496; Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 132-133 (finding allegations insufficient); Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 679; Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1241.) โThe same is true for fraud.โ (Id. citing McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1471.) โNo reason appears why an insurance company should not be subject to similar liability under the UCL if false advertising or similar misrepresentations can be proved.โ Id.
โThus, in Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 263, the court โ also dealing with a demurrer โ analyzed the pleading separately with respect to the sufficiency in alleging UCL unfair business practices, unlawful business practices, and fraudulent business practices.โ (Zhang v. Superior Court at 1089.) โAlthough it acknowledged some doubt as to whether the alleged conduct qualified as โunfair,โ it had no difficulty finding that the plaintiff could maintain the UCL claim against the defendant insurer with respect to fraudulent conduct.โ (Id.) โWe agree with the approach in Progressive West, and to the extent that Textron Financial is inconsistent, we disagree.โ (Id.)
Under Insurance Code ยง 1871.1(l)(1), asserting a violation of this section โmay not be filed more than three years after the discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for commencing the action.โ
Statute of limitations for claims under Insurance Code ยง 1871.7 begins running when the plaintiff becomes aware of circumstances that lead the plaintiff to reasonably suspect a factual basis for wrongdoing, thus putting the plaintiff on inquiry notice of the claim. (State of California ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 402, 417.)
Cross-defendants assert that the UCL causes of action are defective as a matter of law because the conduct complained of is governed by Californiaโs Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โUIPAโ) (Insurance Code ยง790 et seq.) and in Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโs Fund Insurance Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 the California Supreme Court held that the UIPA does not create a private cause of action against insurers who violate its provisions. See, Hadland v.
PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASES
CORD4612
May 29, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
790.03 and Bus. & Prof. Code ? 17200. However, no private right of action exists for violation of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), and enforcement powers are vested exclusively in the Insurance Commissioner. Moradi Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988), 46 Cal.3d 287, 304. Thus, plaintiff is given leave to amend to state allegations necessary to plead a claim for violation of the UCL. Plaintiff must also state facts necessary to plead elder abuse.
CONNIE H. SEBASTIAN VS. SURETY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
CGC13529155
Jul 11, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
ยฟยฟInsurance Code section 790.03 is found in the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โUIPAโ). โThe UIPA's operative provision is section 790.02, which states: โNo person shall engage in this State in any trade practice which is defined in this article as, or determined pursuant to this article to be, an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance.โ
ANTHONY XEPOLIS VS TOKIO MARINE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY
20STCV15995
Nov 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
So, the violations Plaintiff alleges are not based on grounds "independent from" section 790.03.
MICHAEL COLLINS VS. INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
56-2014-00456956-CU-IC-VTA
May 11, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
While the opposition cites to the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), the complaint itself lacks any such reference, and otherwise just provides a reiterated list of the conduct leading to the denial of the claim, plus the addition of a serious accusation of systematic ethnic discrimination. While such a charge and violation of the UIPA can support a claim under the unlawful practice standard, the allegations in and of themselves lack specific facts regarding any basis for this conclusion . ( Zhang v.
ANI SOGHOMONYAN VS TOPA INSURANCE COMPANY
22CHCV00202
Jun 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Private UIPA actions are absolutely barred; a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. (CelโTech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 182โ183, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 973 P.2d 527; Manufacturers Life, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 283โ284, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 220, 895 P.2d 56; MoradiโShalal, at p. 304, 250 Cal.Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58.)
BARRA V. VIKING
16CV-0619
Apr 13, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, the California Supreme Court held that a third party may not sue a tortfeasor's insurer under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โUIPA,โ Ins. Code ยงยง 790, et. seq.) for the tort of bad faith claims handling practices. Enforcement of the UIPA rests exclusively with the Insurance Commissioner, so neither the insured nor a third party may bring an action against the insurer for violation of the UIPA. (Moradi-Shalal, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 313.)
LEONEL ORTEGA V. SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY
17CECG00251
Sep 26, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Ryan first argues that this cause of action is improperly premised on the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Insurance Code section 790.03 (UIPA). Plaintiffs argue that their UCL is premised upon a violation of Penal Code section 550, subdivision (b). (Complaint, ยถ 36.) Ryan argues that all of the alleged bad acts are covered within section 790.03 and so are not actionable. The California Supreme Court effectively rejected Ryanโs first argument in Yanting Zhang v.
LORNA MOORE ET AL VS AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
17CV01780
Oct 31, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
Conduct Based on Violation of UIPA Colony argues that this cause of action fails because it is an impermissible attempt to plead around the holding of the landmark case Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโs Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 which held that the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โUIPAโ) does not create a private cause of action for commission of the various unfair practices listed in Insurance Code section 790.03. (Dem. at 4.) Colony is partly correct.
KONSTANTINOS KAPNISIS VS COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV13764
Aug 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
) [6] On the face page of the FAC , Plaintiff captions this cause of action as Violation of Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Insurance Code 785, 790. In the body of the FAC, however, Plaintiff identifies the cause of action as Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: violation of Unfair Business Practices Act, Ins. Code 785 and 790.
NEIL H. COGAN VS AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
23STCV20030
Feb 13, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
However, โPrivate UIPA actions are absolutely barred; a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim.โ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 384.) The Cohansโ FAC largely argues that their cause of action under the UCL is based on violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โUIPAโ), Insurance Code section 790.03. (FAC ยถ 55.) As State Farm argues, and the Court agrees, UCL claims may not be based on violations of UIPA. (Zhang v.
PERRY COHAN, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION
19STCV12696
Oct 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
While a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a[n] [unfair competition] claim[,] a plaintiff may allege an unfair competition cause of action against an insurer that has engaged in conduct that violates both the Unfair Insurance Practices Act and obligations imposed by other statutes or common law. ( Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 384.)
ROYA RANJBARI VS LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV35158
Sep 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Damages for Violation of Insurance Code Section 790.03 State Farm contends that Plaintiff has no right to damages under Insurance Code section 790.03 because that section does not provide a private right of action. State Farm is correct. (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 (holding that Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โUIPAโ) (Ins.
EDDIE ELLOIE VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
19STCV15754
Sep 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Parties are not precluded from bringing โfirst party UCL actions based on grounds independent from section 790.03, even when the insurerโs conduct also violates section 790.03โ and a claim of โinsurance bad faith โฆ provide[s] [a] ground for a UCL claim independent from the [Unfair Insurance Practices Act].โ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 369.)
VENEGAS, ET AL. V. GEICO INS. AGENCY, INC., ET AL.
FCS052923
Apr 24, 2020
Solano County, CA
Title 10 ยง2695.7) and California Insurance Code 790.03(h) and Plaintiffs claims of discrimination based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, or primary language . (4AC ยถยถ82-83). A private party cannot bring an unfair competition claim based on the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) set forth in Insurance Code 790.03, et seq. Zhang (2013) 57 C4th 364, 368, 384. California Code of Regulations, Title 10, ยง2695.7 is a derivative of Insurance Code 790.03(h).
HEATHER CHO, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
21CHCV00312
Mar 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Parties are not precluded from bringing โfirst party UCL actions based on grounds independent from section 790.03, even when the insurerโs conduct also violates section 790.03โ and a claim of โinsurance bad faith โฆ provide[s] [a] ground for a UCL claim independent from the [Unfair Insurance Practices Act].โ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 369.) Defendantโs answer shall be filed within 20 days.
VENEGAS, ET AL. V. GEICO INS. AGENCY, INC., ET AL.
FCS052923
Jun 04, 2020
Solano County, CA
To support their cause of action, plaintiffs cite to Insurance Code ยง 790.03 and the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, which impose specific claims handling requirements on insurers (collectively, the โUnfair Insurance Practices Act,โ or โUIPAโ). Plaintiffs, however, have done nothing more than recite the language of Insurance Code ยง 790.03 when asserting facts supporting their third cause of action. Chermakโs discovery responses are similar. (UMF Nos. 35, 36, 39 and 40).
DAVID LAWRENCE CHERMAK VS WILLIAM JOSEPH BAER
KC068634
Jun 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
UCL Claim (3rd COA) โ Defendants demur to the UCL claim in the 3rd COA, arguing that there is no private right of action under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and a UIPA claim cannot be reframed as a UCL claim. This overlooks case law which recognizes that a UCL claim may be premised upon an insurance companyโs bad faith practices. See Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364. Because the 2nd COA is sufficient, so is the 3rd COA. This ground is overruled.
GARY MADDOCK ET AL VS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO
BC659212
Feb 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Companies (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 287, 304], the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff may not seek damages against an insurer under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) ( Ins. Code, ยง 790 et seq.) because the UIPA does not allow for a private right of action for damages.... Subsequent cases have held that a plaintiff cannot plead around the bar to private causes of action under the UIPA by recasting his or her suit as one under the UCL. (See, e.g., Safeco Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 216 Cal.
RAMIREZ-CENICEROS VS. PACIFIC SPECIALTY
MSC15-01829
Oct 05, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
Defendant quotes only the passage stating that a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. ( Id. at 384.) But Amguard omits the essential point in the next two sentences: However, when insurers engage in conduct that violates both the UIPA and obligations imposed by other statutes or the common law, a UCL action may lie. The Legislature did not intend the UIPA to operate as a shield against any civil liability.
AFZALI FAMILY TRUST VS BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., ET AL.
21STCV46149
May 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Private UIPA actions are absolutely barred; a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 182โ183; Manufacturers Life, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 283โ284; Moradi-Shalal, at p. 304.) However, when insurers engage in conduct that violates both the UIPA and obligations imposed by other statutes or the common law, a UCL action may lie. The Legislature did not intend the UIPA to operate as a shield against any civil liability.
KONSTANTINOS KAPNISIS VS COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV13764
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
But the California Supreme Court has held that UIPA does not create a private cause of action. ( M o radi-Shalal , 46 Cal.3d at 304 ([n]either section 790.03 nor section 790.09 was intended to create a private civil cause of action against an insurer that commits one of the various acts listed in section 790.03 subdivision (h).) ) A plaintiff cannot bootstrap an alleged violation of the UIPA onto the UCL in order to create a private right of action. ( Safeco Ins. Co. o f America v.
RAYMOND SARRAF VS THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ET AL.
22SMCV02706
Mar 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Code ยงยง 790 et seq. or the regulations promulgated under ยงยง 790 et seq., citing to, inter alia, Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 292 and Zhang v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 384. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that a fair reading of these cases only bar specific causes of action under Ins. Code ยงยง 790 et seq. or breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant causes of action based solely on alleged violations of ยง 790 et seq. or the regulations thereto.
SINGH VS STERLING CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
RG19034122
Jan 26, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Codeโ) ยง 790.03 subd. (h) and corresponding regulations in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, ยง 2695.1 et seq . The Court notes, as an initial matter, that private causes of action under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โUIPAโ) are absolutely barred and โa litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. [Citations.]
BABAK PANAHPOUR VS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV34115
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
The Court resolved a split of between the courts of appeal with respect to the availability of Unfair Business Practices claims in insurance bad faith actions and held that insurance practices that violate the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) can support a UCL action, and that, UIPA does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the UIPA. Zhang, at 368.
ARAM TERMARTIROSYAN VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
22GDCV00064
May 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Seventh COA: Unfair Competition: OVERRULED Defendant argues plaintiffsโ UCL claim is barred as a matter of law because plaintiffs lack standing and under case law interpreting the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), codified under the Insurance Code. In opposition, plaintiffs argue they have standing because they lost money from defendantโs denial of their claim.
CHRISTOPHER AND TERESA DION VS CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE CO
BC627381
Dec 12, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
The creation of section 790.03(h) did nothing either to expand or restrict the preexisting common law right of action; the limitation of the utilization of section 790.03 to governmental entities should similarly have no effect upon the common law private right of action.
TIMOTHY CURRY VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
20PSCV00198
Sep 02, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
(Perry) (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790 (hereinafter, โColonialโ); see also Mercury Interactive Corp. v.
UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA
18CV322879
Dec 20, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
(Perry) (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790 (hereinafter, โColonialโ); see also Mercury Interactive Corp. v.
UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA
18CV322879
Dec 05, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
The court agreed that cross-complainants could not state a claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 because California law precluded such an action where the underlying conduct was a violation of Californiaโs Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Insurance Code section 790 et seq. The demurrers were sustained with leave to amend. Cross-complainants have now filed their first amended cross-complaints alleging essentially the same claims under Connecticut law.
PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASES
CORD4612
Aug 21, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiffโs allegations in paragraphs 10-14, and 23-24 directly support a claim for unfair practices under Insurance Code section 790.03, subdivision (h).To the extent that these causes of action are based on Insurance Code section 790.03, Plaintiff cannot relabel their private cause of action for unfair practices under Insurance Code section 790.03 as โWrongful Handling and Reckless, Willful, and Malicious Failure to Exercise Due Careโ to get around Moradai-Shalalโs holding.
PHAT MINH NGUYEN VS ALLIANCE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY
19STCV44889
Mar 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Insurance Practices Act (โUIPAโ) to support a UCL claim.
HUSSEIN ALI VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
21CECG00725
Jan 27, 2022
Fresno County, CA
[9] The UIPA was enacted to regulate trade practices in the business of insurance by defining and prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. [10] For this reason, any discussion of cases that discuss Insurance Code sections are inapplicable as the court is bound by the pleadings on a demurrer and the complaint does not allege violations of Insurance Code Section 790.03.
AIDA ORIBIO ITURBE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
22STCV01661
Aug 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
THE AMENDMENT MUST SPELL OUT THE MANDATORY DUTIES THE COMMISSIONER ALLEGEDLY HAS FAILED TO PERFORM AND MUST ALLEGE FACTS THAT ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER INSURANCE CODE SECTION 790.03 AND 10291.5. =(302/PJM/AY)
FARHAD S MAHJOURI VS. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
CGC07461992
Sep 28, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
THE AMENDMENT MUST SPELL OUT THE MANDATORY DUTIES THE COMMISSIONER ALLEGEDLY HAS FAILED TO PERFORM AND MUST ALLEGE FACTS THAT ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER INSURANCE CODE SECTION 790.03 AND 10291.5. =(302/PJM/AY)
ELIZABETH SQUIERS MD VS. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION ET AL
CGC07462326
Sep 28, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
section 2695.183 provides: โTo communicate an estimate of replacement value not comporting with subdivisions (a) through (e) of this Section 2695.183 to an applicant or insured in connection with an application for or renewal of a homeowners' insurance policy that provides coverage on a replacement cost basis constitutes making a statement with respect to the business of insurance which is misleading and which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known to be misleading, pursuant to Insurance Code section 790.03
MATTER OF HERBERT FLEMING AND GENEVIEVE M. FLEMING TRUST
SPR-091075
Sep 26, 2018
Renรฉ Auguste Chouteau
Sonoma County, CA
Here, Halbleib seeks leave to add a thirteenth cause of action for violation of Insurance Code ยง790.03(h). But the California Supreme Court has ruled that there is no private right of action under that statute. Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโs Fund Insurance Companies (1988) 46 Cal.App.3rd 287, 304. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE VS. KATHRYN F. HALBLEIB
MSC15-00894
Jul 21, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
Code ยง790.03(h) and 10 CCR ยง2695.1 et seq.
SERAFINA ROMERO VS. LAWRENCE MONTGOMERY
19CECG02939
Feb 24, 2022
Fresno County, CA
Plaintiff may not rely on Insurance Code 790.03 to plead a cause of action under B & P Code 17200. AICCO, Inc. v Insurance Co. of North America (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 579, 596-597. The 6th cause of action makes clear that the policy did not provide wrongful eviction coverage and so there is no covenant to breach. Plaintiff does not oppose the demurrer to the 7th cause of action for reformation. A negligence claim cannot be based on the facts alleged. Brown v. Guarantee Ins. Co. (1957) 155 Cal.
NIMER MASSIS ET AL VS. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE ET AL
CGC07465350
Aug 18, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
The Court held, in part, that the agent owed the insureds a statutory duty under Insurance Code sections 780, 781 and 790.03. Thus, section 790.03, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will serve to establish and define the statutory duty owed by an insurance agent to the insured. In this action, it is undisputed that Johnson & Wood was a "licensee" as this term is defined. See 10 C.C.R. 2695.2(m) and Separate Statement no. 15. It is also undisputed that Endurance is an "insurer."
ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY [E-FILE]
37-2015-00028446-CU-IC-CTL
Mar 13, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
In his Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the cause of action is premised on Defendants breach of its duties under Insurance Code ยง 790.03. Insurance Code section 790.03 defines certain conduct as unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance. There is no private right of action under section 790.03, with enforcement limited to administrative proceedings carried out by the Insurance Commissioner. ( Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
LEV HAKAK VS INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB
21STCV47417
Oct 20, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Her subsequent complaint against defendant insurer asserted statutory violations (CCP section 790.03) for the defendant insurers refusal to settle her claim promptly and fairly against the insured. The Royal Globe court concluded that a joint lawsuit against both the insured for negligence and insurer for violating its duties under section 790.03 is improper.
YONGJIA CHEN, ET AL. VS YILIN YAO, ET AL.
19STCV13326
Sep 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On 08/20/18, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against defendant for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) violation of Business & Professions Code ยง 17200; (5) violation of Insurance Code section 790.03, 10082.3 and 2071; and (6) declaratory relief. ANALYSIS: โIf plaintiff amends the complaint before the demurrer hearing, the hearing goes off calendar.โ
JEWEBLER INC VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON
BC696111
Sep 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Moreover, in response to Defendantโs argument that Plaintiff has simply omitted reference to the Unfair Insurance Practice Act (โUIPAโ) and alleged a UIPA violation under the label of a UCL violation, Zhang expressly approves such a procedure, so long as the conduct alleged also violates some statute other than the UIPA. (Id. at 382-384.) Here, Defendantโs alleged conduct also violates other sections of the Insurance Code and common-law bad faith principles.
640 CENTER, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION ET AL.
STK-CV-UIC-2019-0010757
Feb 21, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
Third Cause of Action โ Unfair Business Practices Plaintiff alleges that Defendantโs unlawful conduct in violation of Business & Professions Code ยง17200 includes violations of California Insurance Code ยง790.03(b). However, ยง790.03 does not create a private civil cause of action and plaintiff cannot plead around that limitation by relying on conduct in violation of ยง790.03 as the basis for a claim under the UCL. (Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 283.)
FARZIN NASSIR VS FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO ET AL
BC602068
Feb 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
โFor a number of years, California courts recognized a separate basis for extracontractual recovery based on insurer violations of the Unfair [Insurance] Practices Act.โ (Croskey, CPG: Insurance Litigation (TRG 2021) ยง12:23 citing, Ins. Code ยง790, et. seq.; particularly ยง790.03(h).) โThe California Supreme Court held that the Unfair Practices Act impliedly authorized a direct action against insurers by victims of unfair claims settlement practices.โ (Id. at ยง12:24 citing, Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct.
GOTSCHALL VS MITCHELL
RIC2001616
May 17, 2021
Riverside County, CA
A joint trial against the insured for negligence and against the insurer for violating its duties under [Insurance Code ยง 790.03] subdivision (h) would obviously violate both the letter and spirit of the section.โ ( Royal Globe Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 (overruled on other grounds by Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโs Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 56 Cal.3d 287).
EFSHALIM TOMEH VS SAN DIMAS GRAIN CO., ET AL.
19STCV28357
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
A joint trial against the insured for negligence and against the insurer for violating its duties under [Insurance Code ยง 790.03] subdivision (h) would obviously violate both the letter and spirit of the section.โ ( Royal Globe Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 (overruled on other grounds by Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโs Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 56 Cal.3d 287).
EFSHALIM TOMEH VS SAN DIMAS GRAIN CO., ET AL.
19STCV28357
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Code] section 790.03, even when the insurer's conduct also violates section 790.03,โ discussed both the UCL in general and the limitations under Moradi-Shalal and its progeny in explaining its conclusions. The long, detailed explanation provides a thorough discussion of the courtโs view on UCL, or claims for unfair business practices, under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500.
WESTFALL VS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
SCV-263302
Aug 01, 2019
Sonoma County, CA
Defendants also argue that Remington cannot be liable for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03 as he is not a โbusiness of insurance.โ ((See Ins. Code, ยง 790.03.) Though not specifically raised by Defendants, presumably the argument would also be that Remington is not subject to a claim for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because he, as an agent of Western, cannot have committed unfair business practices.
HAROUTUN KARATAVUKY ET AL VS WESTERN GENERAL INS CO ET AL
BC704967
Sep 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
There is an Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code ยง 790, et seq.). But there is no private civil cause of action against an insurer under that statute. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 (1988). In the complaint, plaintiff cites Ins. Code ยง 1631, which requires that insurance brokers and agents be licensed. Any person who transacts insurance without a valid license so to act is guilty of a misdemeanor. Ins. Code ยง 1633.
KENNETH FARMER VS ESPERANZA MENDOZA, ET AL
1439202
Feb 20, 2015
Santa Barbara County, CA
Code ยง790.03, since there is no private right of action for alleged violations of that statute prior to the insured being found liable. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 287, 313. The case of Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 364, 369, does not apply to this case, which is brought by a third party claimant.
GKBH RESTAURANT, LLC VS. KIM
30-2017-00938718-CU-CO-CJC
Dec 21, 2017
Orange County, CA
Code ยงยง 790.03, 10082.3, and 2071; and (6) Declaratory Relief. ANALYSIS: Defendant IJU demurs to each cause of action in the complaint. Much of Defendantโs demurrer turns on whether an insurance broker is subject to the same claims as the insurance provider (the other defendants). At no point in the complaint, however, is IJU actually identified as an insurance broker. This information therefore goes beyond the scope of the FAC, and is not considered.
JEWEBLER INC VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON
BC696111
Jan 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Code ยง 790.03 are moot.
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE
CVRI2200057
Dec 06, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Nor does the allegation that Defendant American Family violated Insurance Code section 790.03(f) support this cause of action. There is no private right of action for an alleged violation of the Insurance Code. ( Moradi-Shalal v. Firemans Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 303-304; Coleman v. Republic Indemnity Ins. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 403, 415.)
LOUIS ASHODIAN VS ADDISON CULLEY
21STCV02462
Sep 01, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, the case is distinguishable because it was based on a private right of action by an insured under Insurance Code ยง 790.03(h) prior to the decision in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 292, in which such a private right of action was eliminated. "Colonial Life has been followed, however, by California state courts considering not only claims under ยง 790.03 of the Insurance Code but also common law 'bad faith' claims."
CUCICEA VS AAA INSURANCE
HG20054759
Sep 20, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Code] section 790.03, even when the insurer's conduct also violates section 790.03,โ discussed both the UCL in general and the limitations under Moradi-Shalal and its progeny in explaining its conclusions. The long, detailed explanation provides a thorough discussion of the courtโs view on UCL, or claims for unfair business practices, under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500.
SCOTT V. FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION
SCV-263319
Apr 25, 2019
Sonoma County, CA
As Defendants note, Plaintiffs cannot premise a UCL claim on violation of Insurance Code ยง790.03 (and particularly ยง790.03(h)(3)). Bates v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. 2011) 765 .Supp.2s 1218, 1221.
WUN-LING CHANG, M.D., INC. VS BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
19STCV02777
Feb 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Further, there is no private right of action for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03. (See Reid v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 262, 276.) Under this analysis, none of the allegedly disputed facts are material.
IDS VS. RUTHNICK
MSC13-02430
Oct 14, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
Code ยงยง 790.03, 10082.3, and 2071 First, Ins. Code ยง 790.03 lists numerous acts that insurance companies are prohibited from engaging in. The California Supreme Court has recently reiterated, however, that no private right of action exists under that statute, whether directly or as a predicate for a UCL claim; rather the Insurance Commissioner is tasked with enforcing its requirements. (See Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364.)
JEWEBLER INC VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON
BC696111
Jan 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Moving Defendants are not alleged to be insurers per 20 CCR section 2695.9 or the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Ins. Code section 790.03. Further, there are insufficient facts to support the allegation that CRSC Defendants misrepresented their qualifications, as will be discussed below. Accordingly, Moving Defendantsโ demurrers are SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to this cause.
SUSAN FISHMAN, ET AL. VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, ET AL.
19STCV42542
Aug 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
CIGA's Immunity From Tort Liability Plaintiffs argue CIGA is liable for compensatory and punitive damages under three tort theories: violation of the Unfair Practices Act (ยง 790 et [*784] seq.), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and common law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
GABRIELLE A PEDONE VS SHANT ALBERT OURFALIAN ET AL
BC718101
Nov 13, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Code, ยงยง 790.03 and 790.09 create private cause of action against insurer for bad faith refusal to settle claim]. Although the Court is not confident that plaintiff can successfully amend in light of the fundamental nature of the pleading defects, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.
JOHN BROSNAN VS. CLARISSA MIYAMOTO
MSC19-01048
Aug 18, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
Specifically, Storeleeโs reliance on Doctors is misplaced because its holding is particularized to the requirements of Insurance Code section 790.03. Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03 against Storelee. Additionally, Storeleeโs reliance on Henry is misplaced because the court in Henry found that it was permissible to bring tort claims against insurers.
RENELDORE EDMONSON VS PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV17350
Dec 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Code, ยง 790 et seq.). (Id. at 304-306 [overruling its previous opinion in Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880].) Therefore, Plaintiffโs claim against Allstate for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03 fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff offers no response in opposition. Accordingly, Allstateโs demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave in its entirety.
MARK PROCESS VS RICHARD RAWLINGS, ET AL.
19STCV16837
Nov 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff also asserts that defendant violated Insurance Code ยง 790.03(h) by failing to promptly investigate and process her claim. As a private litigant, plaintiff may not assert a cause of action based on Insurance Code ยง 790.03. ( Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304.)
MICHELLE CADWELL VS WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21STCV20524
Mar 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff is awarded $790 in reasonable attorneysโ fees and costs as sanctions to be paid by Defendant in 60 days. Prevailing party to prepare the order after hearing and notice of entry of order.
JONES V. TABANAN
FCS050260
Feb 15, 2019
Solano County, CA
Plaintiff alleges a bad faith claim against defendants pursuant to Insurance Code section 790.03 based on defendantsโ alleged failure to perform contractual obligations in good faith. However, as set forth above, plaintiff fails to properly allege the existence of a written contract, including the terms of the policy that have allegedly been breached. It appears to the court that plaintiff can amend the complaint to properly allege the existence of a written contract. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend.
COSTA, KEVIN VS. STEWART TITLE OF PLACER
S-CV-0041095
Dec 11, 2018
Placer County, CA
[In Geraci], although plaintiffโs causes of action were not couched in terms of violations of section 790.03 the conduct of which she complains stems from defendantsโ claims-handling practices. Thus, they should be governed by Royal Globe.โ (Geraci, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1253.)
KENNETH GILCHRIST ET AL VS WILLIAM STAFFORD ET AL
1413879
Jan 10, 2013
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.4th at 368 (โwhile a plaintiff may not use the UCL to โplead aroundโ an absolute bar to relief, the UIPA does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the UIPA.โ) Accordingly, based on the courtโs findings with respect to plaintiffsโ fifth cause of action for violation of the CFIL, plaintiffs are also entitled to summary adjudication of the seventh cause of action as to defendants U.S. Cryotherapy and Kevin Kramer.
COAST CRYO, INC. ET AL VS. U.S CRYOTHERAPY FRANCHISING, LLC
S-CV-0039911
Feb 05, 2019
Placer County, CA
Contract
Breach
Petitioner State Bar has now represented that the remaining 790 client files from the law practice of Amy Lynn Spencer do not relate to criminal or probate matters, or involve any original wills or trusts. Hence petitioner State Bar is authorized to have these 790 unclaimed client files shredded in a commercially reasonable manner.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OF LAW PRACTICE OF AMY LYNN SPENCER
30-2016-00869786-CU-PT-CJC
Apr 06, 2018
Orange County, CA
Code, ยง 790 et seq.] requires insurers โto attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.โ (Ins. Code, ยง 790.03, subd. (h)(5).) However, no private action is created thereby; the enforcement power rests exclusively with the Insurance Commissioner. Therefore neither the insured, nor a third-party with a claim against the insured, can sue the insurer for violating this statute. (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
WINDFIELD V. ROBERTS, ET AL.
16CECG00160
May 16, 2017
Fresno County, CA
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION โ BAD FAITH LEGAL STANDARDS While not provided in the Complaint, Plaintiffsโ opposition argues Insurance Code section 790.03(h) as grounds for this cause of action. (Opp. 9:10-22.)
CARLENE CHANDLER ET AL. VS OLD REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION
STK-CV-UIC-2022-0010104
Nov 14, 2023
San Joaquin County, CA
GRANT sanctions in the amount of $790 payable within 30 days. Prevailing party to give notice.
STEVENS VS. ELITE ARBOR
MCC1701181
Jun 25, 2018
Raquel A. Marquez
Riverside County, CA
To the extent Plaintiff can allege a UCL violation that is not solely based on violation of Insurance Code section 790.03, Defendantโs demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
MICHELLE GNANAKONE VS WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
BC706221
Jan 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Sanctions $790 payable forthwith.
PARKER VS MERCURY INSURANCE
RIC1906058
Mar 09, 2022
Riverside County, CA
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Matter on calendar for Friday, January 11, 2013, Line 10, DEFENDANTs VALERIE LEE, 790 POTRERO, LLC, KEVIN LEE's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Off calendar. Dismissal of the entire action filed on November 19, 2012. =(302/MJM)
GEROME HAMMOND ET AL VS. VALERIE LEE ET AL
CGC11511741
Jan 11, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
Cross-Complainant Christopher Glenn Beckom is to pay moving party sanctions in the amount of $790 ($350 X 2 + $90 costs).
HENRY VS. BECKOM
RIC1818455
Oct 02, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 784, 790.) The preliminary report does not contain an arbitration cause, so the issue is whether the arbitration clause in the issued CLTA policy was sufficiently incorporated into the preliminary report by reference.
CHRIS KLEVELAND V. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
1167727
Oct 03, 2005
Santa Barbara County, CA
At most, Plaintiffs rely on Insurance Code, ยง 790.03, which is regarding unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance. However, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that they had a preexisting relationship with Defendant or its insurance agents, or that Defendant was an entity that owed insurance obligations to Plaintiffs.
MAX BARCHICHAT VS SMART & FINAL STORES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23BBCV00456
Mar 08, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
SANCTIONS OF $790 TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST GREG MCCORD. =(302/LMG)
MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY VS. KEVIN D. CARROLL ET AL
CGC10503318
May 05, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
The court approves the sale of 790 Stony Brook St., Simi Valley, and the sale of the two vacant lots in Camden, Missouri. The proceeds from the sale of 2606 Wheatfield Cir., Simi Valley, CA, should be transferred to the Butcher Family Trust along with any gains or losses associated with investment of (or interest received upon) those funds since the $250,411.21 check was issued on May 19, 2015.
IN THE MATTER OF DAWN BUTCHER
56-2017-00501163-PR-CP-OXN
Aug 21, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Family Law
Conservatorship
Blackburn (attorney for Bruce Goss) was served with the motion at โ790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 280, Pasadena, California 91101.โ However, Mr. Blackburnโs correct address is โ709โ and not โ790.โ Based on the unopposed nature of this motion, it appears that the motion was not properly noticed on Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bruce Goss. RULING: The Court will continue the motion in order for Plaintiff to properly serve Defendant with this motion and provide an opportunity for Defendant to oppose the motion.
JACQUELINE CORCORAN VS. BRUCE GOSS
GC050128
May 04, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Sanctions in the amount of $790 to be paid by Plaintiff to Defendants within 15 days of entry of this order. = (302/LMG)
LISA M. YAKOVICH VS. FANNIE SIU ET AL
CGC10501950
Feb 17, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiff to pay defendant $790 within 15 days of notice of entry of order. = (302/LMG)
MATTHEW ENGELN VS. JESSICA WISE ET AL
CGC10497902
Mar 25, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
In its fourth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the UCL by violating Insurance Code ยงยง 790.03, et seq. (Compl., ยถยถ 56-57.) As a result, Plaintiff has suffered monetary and property loss and โis entitled to recover retroactive rent; restitution; reimbursement for property damage; reimbursement for loss of business income; an award of attorneyโs fees as permitted by law; and an award of costs.โ (Compl., ยถยถ 61-63.)
W & G FASHION CLOTHING, INC. VS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT
20STCV30332
Jan 29, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
s Request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $790. = (501/CEAK)
JONG B. LEE VS. CATHERINE J. KOSTLAN ET AL
CUD11637395
Nov 16, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Grant as to special and form interrogatories, request for production of documents and request for admission plus sanctions of $790 fees and costs. = (501/REQ)
DAVID MOSCONE ET AL VS. JOI FULLER ET AL
CUD12640889
Apr 18, 2012
San Francisco County, CA
GRANT Victoria Labayโs Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 21-23 and 35โDefendant is ordered to produce verified further responses within 20 DAYS; GRANT the request for sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $790, payable within 30 DAYS. 3. Moving party to give notice.
LABAY VS. MANOR CARE
MCC1700863
Jun 11, 2018
Raquel A. Marquez
Riverside County, CA
(Covenant Care, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 790.)
MARCIA BRANAGAN VS. LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
56-2009-00335920-CU-MM-SIM
Sep 29, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
App. 3d 786, 790.) If the proponent attempts to illicit privileged information, the deponent may object at that time. (Ibid.) Because the issue raised by the Court of Appeal involves Carachureโs actual consent to the settlement agreement, rather than solely her mental capacity, the medical records are not likely to be sufficient.
CARACHURE VS SCOTT
RIC1309555
Dec 16, 2016
Riverside County, CA
Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th. 771, 790; Country Villa Claremont Healthcare Center v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 426, 433-434.)
BETMAMOU, NINA VS BRANDEL MANOR
9000635
Jul 18, 2018
Stanislaus County, CA
App. 4th 790, 818. As plaintiff has a separate negligence cause of action, the fourth cause of action is inappropriate. The court overrules remainder of the demurrer. Defendant shall answer the complaint no later than July 26, 2018.
MARY STRICKLAND VS. NATHANIEL JAMES STOVER
56-2017-00505439-CU-PO-VTA
Jul 06, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
Ventura County, CA
(Covenant Care, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 790; Civ. Code, ยง 52.4; Complaint, ยถยถ 89-91.) WCSโ demurrer as to the eighteenth cause of action (violation of Civil Code section 51.9) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 430.10, subd. (e).) The complaint fails to allege this cause of action with sufficient particularity. (Covenant Care, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 790; Civ. Code, ยง 51.9; Complaint, ยถยถ 92-95.) WCSโ demurrer as to the nineteenth cause of action (battery) is OVERRULED.
CV-2023-1946
Jan 17, 2024
Yolo County, CA
APPROVE fees of $1,300 (less $240 already paid) for the conservator, and $790 for conservator's counsel.
IN THE MATTER OF JOAN GOODMAN CLARK
56-2008-00329017-PR-CP-VTA
Feb 02, 2010
Ventura County, CA
Family Law
Conservatorship
Notice Of Motion And Motion For An Order Denying Petitioner'S Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award And Confirming Arb Award; Set for hearing on Thursday, October 28, 2010, line 12, RESPONDENT SEIU LOCAL 790-DONISE MANCHESTER'S Motion For An Order Denying Petitioner's Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award And Confirming Arbitration Award. GRANTED. THE PROPOSED ORDER INCLUDING THE REFERENCE TO COSTS IS PROPER.
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. SEIU LOCAL 790-DONISE MANCHESTER
CPF08508438
Oct 28, 2010
San Francisco County, CA
Proposed intervener Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"), Local 790 has filed a motion to intervene in the instant writ of mandate action. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Lloyd Connelly in Department 33 for all purposes. While motions to intervene are normally heard by the presiding judge in the Sacramento Superior Court, see Local Rule 2.02(B), when a case is assigned to a single judge for all purposes that judge hears all law and motion matters including motions to intervene.
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD
34-2011-80000820-CU-WM-GDS
Jun 27, 2011
Sacramento County, CA
Administrative
Writ
SUPERIOR COURT (1953) 121 CAL.APP.2D 790. =(302/PJM/ER)
CARMEN CARICCHIO VS. GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY CORPORATION ET AL
CGC08476119
Nov 20, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786, 790.) This is a very low burden, yet Petitioner has failed to submit any factual evidence at all as to why he wants a separate trial on the issue of dissolution of marital status before trial on all other issues. --------------------------------------------- Tentative Rulings - Main Menu Home
ALFONSO JOSHUA PADILLA VS IRIS BEATRIZ PADILLA
BD641579
Mar 13, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.) As to the second and third causes of action, plaintiff fails to allege the manner in which his claims are ordinary negligence claims, as opposed to professional negligence claims. The motion to strike is MOOT. Prevailing party to give notice.
HOOVER VS. PHYSICIANS HOSPITAL
MCC1701130
Mar 12, 2018
Raquel A. Marquez
Riverside County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.