What is the Workers’ Compensation Act?

Useful Resources for Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

Recent Rulings on Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA)

26-50 of 10000 results

BRENDA NICHOLS, ET AL. VS CATALINA ISLAND COMPANY, ET AL.

In an action for premises liability, “[l]iability is based not on responsibility for the conduct of others, but on the failure of the [land]owner or occupier to act reasonably under the circumstances when he or she has reason to anticipate the probability of injury and has an opportunity to prevent the injury or warn of the peril. Thus, liability is based on his or her own failure to act reasonably…” (Cody F. v. Falletti (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1242.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SUREN SAHAKYAN VS LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT, ET AL.

Prevailing counsel who qualify for an award under section 1021.5 are entitled to compensation for all hours reasonably spent. Serrano v. Unruh, (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 632–633. The “significant benefit” necessary for a section 1021.5 fee award need not represent a concrete gain; in some cases, a significant benefit may be recognized simply from the effectuation of a fundamental constitutional or statutory policy. Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN RE THE ESTATE OF ALLEN LOUIS HARRISON, DECEASED

It is unknown what the value of the estate is DMS Page 6 before and after costs and statutory compensation, what the remaining values for the distribution are and if the proposed distribution is cash, personal property, real property, in whole or in part. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.651.) 4. The petitioner did not include a request for distribution of property acquired or discovered after order is made. (Prob. Code §11642.) 5. There is no proof of service on file to show that proper notice has been given.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

JANE DOE VS ZWEIBACK, FISET & COLEMAN LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, 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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) The existence and scope of duty are questions of law for the court. (Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 61.) The SACC’s allegations remain substantially similar to the FACC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

JAIME CAMORLINGA VS CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC.

To raise a negligent act to the level of willful misconduct, a plaintiff must plead “(1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril.” (Id. at 528.) Given these differences with Plaintiff’s negligence and intentional tort claims, the Court will permit Plaintiff to allege willful misconduct as a separate theory of liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL PEREZ VS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

The complaint contains a vague and conclusory allegation that, “Due to these acts and failure to act and dangerous conditions, said Defendant, 3 and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, and their employees are liable for Plaintiffs injuries under 4 the Government Code due to a dangerous condition of public property, including, but not 5 limited to, Gov. Code Sections 815.2(a), 820(a), 830.8, 835, 840.2” (FAC ¶ 16.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC, VS RECALIBRATED PERFORMANCE LLC, ET AL.

The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act or acts done in furtherance of the common design. In such an action, the major significance of the conspiracy lies in the fact that it renders each participant in the wrongful act responsible as a joint tortfeasor for all damages ensuing from the wrong, irrespective of whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless of the degree of his activity.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Issue Four: Breach of Express Warranty A Plaintiff pursuing a claim for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act has to establish all of the following: “(1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

EDGAR ABRAHAM RAMIREZ VS ANCHOR PACIFICA GROUP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that he was employed as maintenance personnel for Defendants and was discriminated and retaliated against and wrongfully terminated by Defendants for suffering medical conditions, filing a workerscompensation claim, requesting reasonable accommodations, demanding proper meal and rest breaks, demanding accurate overtime compensation, and complaining about Defendants’ alleged illegal workplace activities. (Complaint ¶ 23.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VIGEN ZADOURIAN VS FORREST MACHINING, INC.

On 8/12/20, Plaintiff Vigen Zadourian filed the instant action (20CHCV00468) against FMI seeking redress for individual claims along with a claim under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). On 10/5/20, Vartanian amended his complaint to include a PAGA claim. On 11/25/20, Zadourian and FMI filed a joint Motion for PAGA Settlement Approval with a 1/19/21 hearing date. On 1/5/21, Vartanian filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the Zadourian action with a 2/22/21 hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BEE INVESTMENT, INC., A CORPORATION VS LYNN KIM

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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) The existence and scope of duty are questions of law for the court. (Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 61.) The SACC’s allegations remain substantially similar to the FACC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEE RELATIO

The 2003 Manual Letter instructed case eligibility workers to perform IEVS and PVS work. AR 70-87, 1132. EW IIIs are not case employees. AR 1132. Floyd also received DPSS’ April 28, 2008 Administrative Directive No. 4719 which gave instructions “on doing PVS manually.” AR 66-69, 1131. Floyd received DPSS’ June 21, 2011 Administrative Directive No. 4972 concerning PVS in Leader. AR 31-65, 1129-30.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PAIGE BLUMBERG VS CARUSO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

successor-in-interest shall execute and file an affidavit or declaration stating: (1) the decedent’s name, (2) the date and place of decedent’s death, (3) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate,” (4) a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor-in-interest, if the decedent’s estate was administered, (5) either the affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest or the affiant or declarant is authorized to act

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELIZABETH L. GREENWOOD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court to sustain its demurrer to Plaintiff’s dangerous condition of public property cause of action based upon several governmental immunities as well as workerscompensation exclusivity. JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court declines to consider Defendant’s request for judicial notice because the Court does not consider the arguments these requests correspond to.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SOUTHWEST LAW CENTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AKA SOUTHWEST LEGAL GROUP VS LUCERO MIRAMONTES, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts that Miramontes has never indicated an objection to the terms of the written retainer or to Plaintiff’s entitled to compensation to be provided to it. Plaintiff contends that it claims no interest in the $3,998.00 in disputed funds except for attorney’s fees, court costs, and other costs associated with the instant interpleader action. Plaintiff further argues that attorney liens have priority over more recent lines, medical bills, and healthcare lienholder bills.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SHAUNA CHAPPELLE VS RONALD LANG, DR., ET AL.

The discovery act authorizes a court to impose various sanctions against a party for misusing the discovery process: To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AMERICA CHUNG NAM LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LI 'MICHAEL' DU

Applicable Law An injunction is a writ or order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act; it may be granted by the court in which the action is brought, or by a judge thereof; and when granted by a judge, it may be enforced as an order of the court. CCP §525. An injunction may be more completely defined as a writ or order commanding a person either to perform or to refrain from performing a particular act. See Comfort v. Comfort, (1941) 17 Cal.2d 736, 741. McDowell v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

SANDRA EVANS VS CASA DEL ALVARADO LLC ET AL

The party must act with diligence upon learning of the judgment. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180; Code Civ. Proc., §473.5, subd. (a).) The party seeking to set aside must also submit a declaration that lack of actual notice was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect and a copy of the proposed answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN O. O'BOYLE, III VS CHARLES ERIC GRAY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed August 21, 2019, alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act against Dealer and Gray, (2) deceit against Dealer and Gray, (3) negligent misrepresentation against Dealer and Gray, (4) violation of Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.) against Dealer and Gray, (5) bond liability against Defendant, Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Surety).

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MA IRMA V. ALVARADO VS S.D.S. INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

compensation claims, other than a workerscompensation claim for discrimination and/or serious and willful misconduct claims because of application provisions of California law.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KIMBERLY A. ZAMBELL VS CHARLES E. HILL, AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY

“Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, the answer may be given; and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.” (Evid. Code, § 356.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

MICHAEL LITTLE ET AL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Although plaintiffs were interviewed by an investigator, no further action was taken and on March 19, 2019, they filed their complaint against Regents for (1) violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act and (2) violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5. On May 20, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case pending plaintiffs’ exhaustion of Regents’ internal whistleblower administrative remedies.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES INC VS. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

This is an action to compel disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Petitioner Friends of Oceano Dunes, Inc. (Friends) is a nonprofit corporation that promotes access to Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (Oceano Dunes) in San Luis Obispo County. Friends submitted the subject CPRA request to Respondent California Air Resources Board (CARB) in September 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARK SIGNA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

On March 19, 2019, officers Michael Little and Tiffany Little filed their complaint against Regents for violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act and violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 19CV01431. (Vassallo Dec., ¶3, Ex. A.) On May 17, 2019, officer Jonathan Reyes filed his complaint against Regents, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 19CV02586. (Vassallo Dec., ¶6, Ex. D.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JOSEFINA J MORAN VS ELIZABETH MORALES

Pursuant to the Covid-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020, the court on January 4, 2021, served a Notice of Hearing on the parties to determine the reason for defendant’s failure to deliver the signed Declaration of Covid-19 Related Financial Distress to plaintiff after being served with the 3-day notice to quit. This is that hearing. ANALYSIS: The Covid-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 (“Act”) is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure Section 1179.01 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

  « first    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.