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

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

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

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

The actual damage requested in the default judgment exceeds that amount for a total of $1,044,000.59 which includes $851,621.67 for workers' compensation insurance premiums paid to Cross-Defendant, IRS and EDD penalties and fees and costs for workers' compensation claims and $192,378.92 for "administrative fees."

  • Hearing

RE: PET’N FOR COMPENSATION

FILED ON 09/30/20 BY C.C. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICE DEPT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Unable to review. File is unavailable at this time. Need: Proposed Order C.C. COUNTY HEALTH SERVICE DEPT KATHLEEN R LAPLANTE TRUDY NELMS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDG...

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FALISHA PORTER VS PHARMAVITE, LLC

RULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO QUASH 12/7/2020 First Amended Complaint alleges: In or around July 2018, defendant began psychological abuse against plaintiff Plaintiff was exposed to conversations, sounds, dinging of a bell, lines of people Plaintiff was a satisfactory employee with no reprimands Plaintiff was exposed to hours a day of throat clearing Plaintiff heard conversations about her personal life Plaintiff was exposed to mimicking Plaintiff was exposed to coordination of colors of clothes by co-workers

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: WVR OFA CCT & FINL DIST, FEES COMPENSATION

FILED ON 07/31/20 BY KATHRYN C ECONOME, BARBARA N FRIDELL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -See also Line #1- Need: 1. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify whether shares of Ford stock were sold. 750 shares appear on hand; however, 1,000 shares were inventoried. 2. Revised, proposed Order...

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BETTY SCHILLING, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD Per the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for damages against a public entity must first file claim directly with that entity. The party may file a lawsuit only if the public entity denies or rejects the claim. (Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.) The claims presentation requirement provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide whether to pay on the claim. (Roberts v.

  • Hearing

CARLOS HALILI VS FCA US, LLC

Documents that evidence any policy and/or procedure used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present. Conclusion Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part. FCA must produce a PMK for deposition and answer questions regarding the deposition topics specified in the deposition notice. FCA must also produce the documents specified in this ruling at the deposition. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant for (1) breach of contract; (2) quantum meruit; and (3) failure to pay wages (pursuant to Ontario Labor Standards Act).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Documents that evidence any policy and/or procedure used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, from the date of purchase to the present. 2. Document Production The Court finds Plaintiff’s document requests to be overly broad and unduly burdensome. As such, the Court issues the following discovery order: Repair orders and invoices concerning the subject vehicle.

  • Hearing

SHAFFER V RICE RANCH COMMUNITY LLC

Working backwards in two-year increments from Shea’s current license expiration date of March 31, 2021, the license period in effect when the alleged “act or omission occurred” on December 2, 2015 was March 31, 2015 to March 31, 2017. (RJN, Exhs. B, C.)

  • Hearing

JENNIFER HERRINGTON V THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ET AL

that State had the means or final authority to control discriminatory practices or policies within the City's Fire Department; nor “[a]s we read the pleading,” did the State play any role in appellant's job training, direction, supervision, compensation, or evaluation.

  • Hearing

RE: FIRST & FINAL ACCT AND RPT, FOR COMPENSATION, FINAL DIST

FILED ON 08/04/20 BY MARCIA S TUCKER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Proposed Order MARCIA S TUCKER JANICE CROSETTI-TITMUS RACHEL MAY SCHILLER VAN LEUVEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No...

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

VAZRIK TSATURYAN VS STEWART BLOOM ET AL

The Court provides notice that if the parties act in this manner in the future, the Court intends to sanction both parties. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice. DATED: December 1, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

FROM THE EARTH, LLC VS CITY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

A SLAPP is “a cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JIN HONG VS MICHELLE KIM, ET AL.

Code Violation RICO/Hobbs Act Violation Professional Negligence On July 27, 2020, Dinglasan’s default was entered. On October 7, 2020, this case was transferred from Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department. A Status Conference is set for December 1, 2020. Discussion The hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to January 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128; 430.41[2].)

  • Hearing

RENEE STARR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Section 815.2 states: A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative. (Gov. Code § 815.2.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any act or omission of any of Defendant’s employees that would give rise to liability.

  • Hearing

BLANCA Y NAVARRO, ET AL. VS ROBERT WU, ET AL.

Rather, it involves a more positive intent actually to harm another or to do an act with a positive, active and absolute disregard of its consequences.” (Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1294 [citation omitted].) Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege the element of intent.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF MARY L COLE ET AL VS ARMEN HOVHANNISYAN MD GROUP

Gutin also states that no act or omission of Defendant caused or contributed to decedent’s injuries and death. Dr. Gutin states that all Defendants, including Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A. properly evaluated decedent’s complaints of abdominal pain, determined that her condition was stable, and provided her with appropriate pain medication. Dr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CARLOS ANTHONY LOPEZ VS THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

Plaintiff appears to object to rulings made in dependency court cases involving his children and contends that these rulings were based on false representations of social workers in the reports. The foregoing allegations, however, reflect that these matters occurred over three years before he filed his original complaint in November 2018. Further, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

On July 30, 2020, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company filed its Complaint-In-Intervention for Recovery of Worker’s Compensation Benefits. On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Defendants MillerCoors, LLC (“MillerCoors”), MillerCoors USA LLC (“MillerCoors USA”), Molson Coors Brewing Company (“Molson”), Alltech, Inc. dba Alltech Biotechnology, Inc.

  • Hearing

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ VS LA CORONA RESTAURANT, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Domingo De La Cruz commenced this action against Defendants La Corona Restaurant and Horacio Reynoso dba Tacos Corona for (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (4) failure to provide itemized wage and hour statements; (5) waiting time penalties; and (6) unfair competition. On October 13, 2020, Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi, A.P.L.C and Ramin R.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NEIL YESCHIN VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff cannot seek to recover punitive damages under the Song-Beverly Act. Indeed, the Song-Beverly Act provides that “[i]f the buyer establishes that the failure to comply was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages.” (Civ. Code § 1794(c).)

  • Hearing

ALAMEDA SQUARE OWNER LLC VS THE LOS ANGELES WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, LLC

[is] a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . in the presentation of the case.” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (Serrano III).) A reasonable hourly rate must reflect the skill and experience of the attorney. (Id. at p. 49.) “Prevailing parties are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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.