What is an unlawful detainer action?

Useful Rulings on Unlawful Detainer Action

Recent Rulings on Unlawful Detainer Action

1-25 of 10000 results

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against New Diamond, Sweet & Cozy and Does 1-10 for: Unlawful Detainer On February 26, 2020, New Diamond’s default was entered. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Sweet & Cozy, without prejudice. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for January 15, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

WILES VS. IRA RESOURCE, INC. CARE OF SHELEE HOWARD

The Court strikes the following, with leave to amend: • Page 16, line 7: “Attorney's fees . . . based on the leased signed by the PARTIES.” • Page 16, lines 8-11: “For injunctive relief including requiring DEFENDANTS to acquire reasonable training or changes in personnel policies and procedures, so that DEFENDANTS no longer engage in unlawful practices, policies, usages and customs set forth herein above, and for such other injunctive relief as the Court may deem proper.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

DANIEL AVILA VS SMG TAVERNS, INC. DBA IGUANA KELLEY'S

Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495 [contact is unlawful if unconsented to].) Concerning holding an employer liable for an employee’s actions, “[t]he respondeat superior doctrine is to be given a broad application…” (Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 427, 434.) [A]s the Supreme Court explained in Farmers [Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478, 906 P.2d 440].

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

LEANDRA GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS VICTORIA VU, ET AL.

Moreover, Plaintiffs themselves allege that Defendant, at the time she made the statements, was acting “in concert with” the development manager and legal counsel for the development—both are which are participants in the unlawful detainer action—for the purpose of pursuing an unlawful detainer action. (See Complaint ¶ 62.) Plaintiffs’ own Complaint situates Defendant’s actions as inextricably linked to the pursuit of an unlawful detainer action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

BACKGROUND: This action arises out of the Defendants’ use of Plaintiff, a “famous” person, in their unlawful advertising practices. (FAC, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Jerome Ogden is a former U.S. Consul General in Shanghai and Guangzhou, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in charge of U.S. visas worldwide, and current consultant for American and Chinese businesses, expert witness in U.S. immigration courts, and professor of international relations. (FAC, ¶¶ 1-2.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CESAR MARTINEZ VS BLUE DOT SAFES CORPORATION, ET AL.

Where the defendant systematically engages in policies and practices that allegedly violate the Labor Code and thereby subjects all of its employees to the same unlawful conduct, common questions of law and fact will predominate over individualized issues. (Id. at 1032-1034 [“[t]he theory of liability—that Brinker has a uniform policy, and that that policy, measured against wage order requirements, allegedly violates the law—is by its nature a common questions eminently suited for class treatment”].)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EUN MI KANG ET AL VS JEONG HOON KIM ET AL

And the claim for unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 is based on Plaintiffs’ allegations that the employment practices described in the preceding causes of action constitute unfair or unlawful business acts or practices. (FAC, ¶ 45.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CAL WORLD EL MONTE, LLC VS BRIAN LAI, ET AL.

Plaintiff has failed to identify any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice engaged in by AMCA/Lai; accordingly, AMCA/Lai’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA LLC VS MARK WOOD

[Citation] ‘[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.’ [Citation.]” (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 937, 944.) Wood alleges Cross-Defendants authorized Michelman to represent to Crystal that Wood had restrictive covenants in place with Acrisure that would prevent him from soliciting clients, and Acrisure would pursue litigation against Crystal if Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MAURICIO JACOBS, ET AL. VS ROYAL MOVING & STORAGE INC., ET AL.

It is alleged that Plaintiffs discovered these unlawful practices and repeatedly protested and complained about them to Defendants. FAC, ¶ 25. It is alleged that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for complaining about the unlawful practices. FAC, ¶ 26. Defendants terminated Espinoza’s employment in December 2018. FAC, ¶ 27. As for Jacobs, it is alleged that Jacobs sustained injuries at work on July 2, 2019, causing him to have a physical disability. FAC, ¶ 28.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PATRICIA DENNISON VS BAHRAM EGHBALI, ET AL.

It is also unlawful for a lessor to bring an action for unlawful detainer based on a cause of action other than nonpayment of COVID-19 rental debt, as defined in Section 1179.02 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has a COVID-19 rental debt. In an action brought by or against the lessee pursuant to this subdivision, the lessee shall bear the burden of producing evidence that the lessor's conduct was, in fact, retaliatory. (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

GREEN AMERICA INC VS SCHEINKER

It alleges that Scheinker induced fear by unlawfully injuring, and threatening GAI’s representative that if it did not give up claims to the property, further damage, harm, and unlawful injury would be done to GAI. (Compl. ¶37.) The Complaint alleges that GAI “became severely agitated and fearful.” (Compl. ¶38.) The civil extortion claim is valid if there is a threat to cause unlawful injury.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

NOVACOAST INC. V. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, ET AL.

Symantec violated Business and Professions Code section 17200 by engaging in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including, but not limited to the following: A.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

COUNTY OF SONOMA V. MAJOR

The County brings this motion to abate violations of the Administrative Abatement Decision and Order and Chapters 7 (Building), 11 (Grading), and 26 (Zoning) of the Sonoma County Code as to the alleged unlawful uses of the real property at 18550 Highway 116, Guerneville (“the Subject Property”). Form CIV-100 is mandatory in order to obtain a default judgment.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

COUNTY OF SONOMA V. DALLEY FAMILY 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST

On August 19, 2019, Permit Sonoma issued Notices and Orders for the following Violations of the SCC and declared the Property to be a public nuisance: VBU19-0786 - Substandard Housing or Premises for junkyard conditions and hazardous material storage and disposal; VPL19-0843 - Unlawful Use/Zoning Violation for expansion of use and Non-compliance with use permit (5246) conditions; VPL19-0844 — Unlawful Use/Zoning Violation for junkyard conditions; VPL1 9-0845 — Unlawful Use/Zoning Violation for intensification

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

JINSONG SHI VS ALG LAWYERS INC., ET AL.

A conspiracy requires evidence ‘that each member of the conspiracy acted in concert and came to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, and that one or more of them committed an overt act to further it.’ Thus, conspiracy provides a remedial measure for affixing liability to all who have ‘agreed to a common design to commit a wrong’ when damage to the plaintiff results. The defendant in a conspiracy claim must be capable of committing the target tort.” (IIG Wireless, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ADEL F. SAMAAN, M.D. VS BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA

Fifth Cause of Action, Unfair Trade Practices Claim (“UCL”): SUSTAINED An “action based on Business and Professions Code section 17200 to redress an unlawful business practice ‘borrows' violations of other laws and treats these violations, when committed pursuant to business activity, as unlawful practices independently actionable under section 17200.” Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 383.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

APRIL LENAI DEAN VS PEOPLE'S CHOICE LENDING, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: Adverse Possession Fraud Recission Quiet title Unfair Business Practices Breach of Contract/Intentional Tort Unlawful Conversion. The current motions/applications before the Court: Demurrer – Defendants SPS, MERS, National, U.S.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PREMIER HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS EGO, INC.

Premier also alleges that Brault extorted Premier to pay outstanding invoices, including fraudulent invoices, by threatening to report Premier to the Department of Justice that Premier was in possession of funds not owed to Premier (which were only in its possession due to Brault’s unlawful conduct). On May 17, 2020, Brault filed a cross-complaint against PHP, Anthony Cardillo, MD (“Cardillo”), and Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians Inc. (“GAEP”) (collectively, Cross-Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Unlawful Detainer “[W]here the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action is the purchaser at a trustee's sale, he or she need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the issue of title.” (The Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado (2013) 224 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 9, internal quotations and citation omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARBIS ZORIAN AND AZNIF ZORIAN AS TRUSTEES FOR THE GARBIS ZORIAN AND AZNIF ZORIAN TRUST DATED JUNE 15,1993 VS SUSAN G. WILLIS

BACKGROUND This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiffs Garbis Zorian and Aznif Zorian as Trustees for the Garbis and Aznif Zorian Trust Dated June 15, 1993 filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendant Susan G. Willis on November 12, 2019 for failure to pay rent. On January 21, 2020, Defendant Susan G. Willis filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiffs (“Cross-Defendants”) asserting causes of action for breach of contract and indemnification pursuant to Labor Code section 3850 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

HRACH ROSTAMI VS ALL PRO COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC

An agency decision is an abuse of discretion only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, unlawful, or procedurally unfair.” Kahn v. Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System, (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 98, 106. A writ will lie where the agency’s discretion can be exercised only in one way. Hurtado v. Superior Court, (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574, 579.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAUL DOMINGUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

“By prescribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, the UCL borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makes independently actionable. . . . . Consequently, the alleged violations of . . . the CLRA are sufficient to satisfy the unlawful practice variety of unfair competition under the UCL. [Citation.] In other words, a violation of the CLRA can serve as the predicate for a UCL cause of action.” (Gutierrez, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 1265.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HOLLYVALE RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC V. KALVIN NATHAN, ET AL.

Defendant contends that because plaintiff does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value, this Court has no jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action, plaintiff was “misjoined to this action,” plaintiff lacks capacity to sue, and plaintiff’s allegations do not constitute a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Only a plaintiff with valid title to real property can proceed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

PREMIER HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS EGO, INC.

Premier also alleges that Brault extorted Premier to pay outstanding invoices, including fraudulent invoices, by threatening to report Premier to the Department of Justice that Premier was in possession of funds not owed to Premier (which were only in its possession due to Brault’s unlawful conduct). On May 17, 2020, Brault filed a cross-complaint against PHP, Anthony Cardillo, MD (“Cardillo”), and Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians Inc. (“GAEP”) (collectively, Cross-Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    Nov 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 load this page.