What is the Workers’ Compensation Act?

Useful Rulings on Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

Recent Rulings on Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

“Although the trial court has broad discretionary powers to grant or deny a request for a preliminary injunction, it has ‘no discretion to act capriciously.’ (Citation.) It must exercise its discretion ‘in favor of the party most likely to be injured.’ (Citation.) If the denial of an injunction would result in great harm to the plaintiff, and the defendants would suffer little harm if it were granted, then it is an abuse of discretion to fail to grant the preliminary injunction.” (Robbins v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

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

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

(Paragraphs 21.3 (regarding WorkersCompensation), Paragraph 21.4 (regarding automobile insurance requirements), Article XX (Indemnification), and Article XXI (Insurance).) There is nothing in the Contract that can be read to express an intent by the parties to benefit Tarsadia as to Turner’s other contractual obligations, including the obligation to produce a defect-free project. Therefore, the analysis applicable to MaryJane’s contract claims applies equally to Evolution.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

A cause of action for a conspiracy in restraint of trade ‘”must allege (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) the wrongful act or acts done pursuant thereto, and (3) the damage resulting from such act or acts.”’” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, ET AL.

By the same token, of course, the function of punitive damages is not served by an award which, in light of the defendant’s wealth and the gravity of the particular act, exceeds the level necessary to punish and deter.’”].) ANALYSIS Yes (10/3/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Government Code section 815, subdivision (a), states “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute: [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

“The elements of a civil conspiracy are (1) the formation of a group of two or more persons who agreed to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act; (2) a wrongful act committed pursuant to the agreement; and (3) resulting damages.” (Id.at p. 212.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

Plaintiffs allege violations of (1) BHMC section 10-3-401, which prohibits the use of a single-family residence in the City’s R-1 zone for the purpose of single-family transient use more than twice per calendar year; (2) BHMC section 10-3-406, which prohibits the operation of any business in the City’s R-1 zone; (3) BHMC section 10-3-4302, which prohibits any person and/or entity from engaging in, permitting, carrying on, or conducting any transient lodging use for compensation or benefit of any kind in any

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

CITY OF POMONA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS HIGH SUPPLY, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Code §§ 3479, 3480, 3491, 3494) Drug Abatement Act (Health & Safety Code § 11570, et seq,) Nuisance Per Se On March 11, 2020, the court granted Plaintiffs’ “Ex Parte Application for an Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order;” at that time, an Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction was scheduled for March 30, 2020 (subsequently continued to July 30, 2020). On April 1, 2020, 985 West Holt’s and High Supply’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

State Compensation Ins. Fund (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 911, 939 [citations omitted].) Discussion Commodity Trucking moves the court for an order, per CCP §§ 598 and 3295(d), for an order bifurcating the issue of punitive damages and precluding any evidence and argument regarding Commodity Trucking’s financial status and, if applicable, corporate size and/or profits unless Plaintiff proves liability and its entitlement to punitive damages in the first phase of trial, and there is a second phase.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AS ASSIGNEE OF STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, A PUBLIC E VS QUINTANA CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Factual Background Plaintiff alleges that Defendant received a WorkersCompensation Insurance Policy (Policy) from the State Compensation Insurance Fund (Plaintiff’s Assigner). On May 9, 2019, the State Compensation Insurance Fund assigned its rights, title and interest in Defendant’s Policy to Plaintiff. An audit of Defendant’s annual payroll was performed after Policy expired, and, as a result of the audit, an outstanding premium payment was generated in the amount of $86,257.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1637, 1644.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a contract with Defendants for the “continued provision of certain financial services,” and “provided that Plaintiff was to continue handling the books and records of the Association on the express condition that the monthly payment would remain the same and “Plaintiff would be elected as Association CFO.” (Complaint ¶¶ 17, 18.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

(collectively, Defendants), alleging a violation of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Defendants now move for a stay on proceedings. The motion is unopposed. Legal Standard “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

On April 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Kota Commercial Assets, LLC (Kota), Kurt Bierschenk; Cactus Heating & Cooling; Mark Anthony Sarno; and Travelers Insurance, alleging: (1) violation of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99); (2) violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; (3) retaliation – public policy (Penal Code § 422); (4) false evidence violations; (5) failure to

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1637, 1644.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a contract with Defendants for the “continued provision of certain financial services,” and “provided that Plaintiff was to continue handling the books and records of the Association on the express condition that the monthly payment would remain the same and “Plaintiff would be elected as Association CFO.” (Complaint ¶¶ 17, 18.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

TPE ACQUISTION,INC. VS PLATINUM STAFFING

Plaintiff alleges that Platinum and Payroll failed to procure workerscompensation insurance and that Plaintiff has been required to incur attorney’s fees and costs defending itself in multiple proceedings instituted with the WorkersCompensation Appeals Board and pay money indemnifying the employees for their claimed workplace injuries and in settling these claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANIEL FLORES CAMPO, ET AL. VS AMPCO CONTRACTING, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

However, there is no requirement that plaintiff identify and allege the precise moment of the injury or the exact nature of the wrongful act. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

NATALIE GAYEVA VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC, ET AL.

“An act can be alleged to violate any or all of the three prongs of the UCL—unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.” (Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1554.) The Complaint in this case, although it states that Select engaged in “unfair” business practices, focuses on fraudulent behavior of the Moving Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

MARQUIS PATTERSON VS MOISES CUELLAR, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

Second Cause of Action: Disability Discrimination California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of a disability. (Govt. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RAUL GUZMAN VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

FCA failed to repair, promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act. (Complaint ¶¶ 16-22.) procedural history Guzman filed the Complaint on July 23, 2019, alleging two causes of action: Violation of Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Magnuson-Moss Act On December 10, 2019, Guzman filed a Notice of Settlement. On June 16, 2020, Guzman filed the present Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. On July 6, 2020, FCA filed an untimely Opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

IN THE MATTER OF INEZ TUTTLE

Conservator requests compensation in the total amount of $14,220.00 for 408.30 hours, however the timesheet attached as Exhibit E totals 406.3 hrs, while the hours summarized on pg 8, lines 6-9 only total 345.9 hours. Furthermore, Petitioner did not provide a statement of facts (declaration) in support of her request as required by CRC 7.751(b) and CRC 7.702. Attorney fees are requested in the total amount of $22,610 plus $1,000 additional future for a total of $23,610.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT GEORGE TUPAC

Hearing: 1) First & Final Account and Report of Executor and Settlement 2) Allowance of Statutory Executor Compensation & Reimbursement of Costs 3) Allowance of attorney fees 4) Instructions on Invalidation, Priority and Payments of Creditor's Claims when Estate is Insolvent, and 5) Abatement of Entire Distribution *************** The Court has reviewed Conservator's First Account and Report and intends to rule as follows: Subject to the foregoing, Grant. Approve the first and final account and report.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.