Answer to Complaint

Useful Rulings on Answer

Recent Rulings on Answer

ESKANDARI STONE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS RAYMOND J. PAGES

Pages’ First Amended Answer to Complaint is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Defendant, nevertheless, asks the Court to grant him leave to amend to assert an affirmative defense that the “joint venture” exception to usury laws applies in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JENNIFER BLACKMON VS‘ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (UNVERIFIED) [PLTF] JENNIFER BLACKMON RULlNG Per stipulation and order by the parties, matter is off calendar. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 1.1 00?) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear telephonically through the court’s vCourt System.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P, FRECCERO

  • County

    Marin County, CA

EVAN CROSS VS. IAN L. WAYNE. ET AL

(First Amended Answer to Complaint, p, 4:22.) PV Tiburon argues that Guaranty Defendants’ Affirmative Defense asserting a statute of limitations bar based on New York Real Property And Procedure Law (“RPAPL”) section 1371 is inapplicable to this action and must be stricken from their answer, PV Tiburon contends that RPAPL section 1371 only applies to judicial foreclosures in New York and not to those out-of -state.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC VS. JEFFREY H. BLOOM, D.O.

Judicial Notice: The Court takes judicial notice of the Complaint, Answer to Complaint and the Cross-Complaint filed in this action, as requested by Plaintiff. (Evid. Code, §452(d).) Evidentiary Objections: Defendants’ evidentiary objection to the Declaration of Jerry Noon is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of David Stroud are SUSTAINED. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objection to the Declaration of Jeffrey Bloom is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC VS. JEFFREY H. BLOOM, D.O.

Judicial Notice: The Court takes judicial notice of the Complaint, Answer to Complaint and the Cross-Complaint filed in this action, as requested by Plaintiff. (Evid. Code, §452(d).) Evidentiary Objections: Defendants’ evidentiary objection to the Declaration of Jerry Noon is SUSTAINED. Defendants to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

STEPHEN GERSHMAN VS. YEHUDA VAKNIN

Defendant is ordered to e-file a signed copy of the proposed Answer to Complaint by close of business this date. The Answer will be deemed served on plaintiff at the time of e-filing.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, VS JAY GLADSTEIN, ET AL.

Rodriguez requests the court take judicial notice of all of the following documents pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 453: Complaint filed on January 28, 2019 in this action; Protective Order of September 13, 2019 entered in this action; Defendants’ Joint Answer to Complaint, filed July 5, 2019 in this action. Rodriguez’s request is granted. The existence and legal effect of these documents are proper matters for judicial notice. (Evidence Code § 452 (c), (d).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TESS BERNARDO VS THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.

.: 19STCV43939 Hearing Date: March 6, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Background Plaintiff Tess Bernardo (“Plaintiff”) allegedly slipped and fell at shopping plaza operated by Defendant Eagle Rock Center, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff demurs to the affirmative defenses in Defendant’s answer, which Defendant opposes. Plaintiff’s demurrer to the sixth affirmative defense in Defendant’s answer is overruled. The demurrer is otherwise sustained with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

MEHRARA VS PETERSON

For administrative purposes, Defendant will need to file a clean copy of her proposed Answer to Complaint with the Court's Civil Business Office. Defendant shall have 10 days to do so. The clerk is DIRECTED to strike the Request for Entry of Default filed on September 6, 2019 (ROA 32). Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452. Background This is a landlord-tenant dispute regarding habitability.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MEHRARA VS PETERSON

For administrative purposes, Defendant will need to file a clean copy of her proposed Answer to Complaint with the Court's Civil Business Office. Defendant shall have 10 days to do so. The clerk is DIRECTED to strike the Request for Entry of Default filed on September 6, 2019 (ROA 32). Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 452. Background This is a landlord-tenant dispute regarding habitability.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HIGH INTEGRITY RACK AND SHELVING, LLC VS TAOMORE SUPPLY CHAIN LTD

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to Complaint (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. II. Legal Standard & Discussion Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendant’s Answer because it appears it was not filed by an attorney as required for entities. (Mot., p. 8-9.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DNA PROPERTIES INC VS ALEX H. AI

In the event a converted Civil Action arises as provided for herein, then said Civil Action shall adjudicate Plaintiff’s monetary claims and causes of action against Defendant as to the Leased Premises as stated in Plaintiff’s complaint and answer to cross-complaint on file herein, and Defendant’s counter-claims and counter-causes of action against Plaintiff as to the Leased Premises as contained in Defendant’s answer to complaint and cross-complaint on file herein. 6.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

DAVID Y NAKATSU VS YUSI LIAO

Nonetheless, the Court will rule on the request as indicated below: This request for judicial notice of the complaint, cross-complaint, answer to complaint, answer to cross-complaint, and request for continuance is DENIED as superfluous. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(d).) Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAVID Y NAKATSU VS YUSI LIAO

Nonetheless, the Court will rule on the request as indicated below: This request for judicial notice of the complaint, cross-complaint, answer to complaint, answer to cross-complaint, and request for continuance is DENIED as superfluous. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(d).) Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CADLES OF WEST VIRGINIA VS. CHRISTIAN ROUSSET

Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests judicial notice of its Complaint for Breach of Contract (and exhibits thereto) as well as Defendant’s Answer to Complaint for Breach of contract (and exhibits thereto). The Court need not take judicial notice of pleadings in its own file. However, due to factual issues regarding the agreement, judicial notice is not proper. The Request is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

WESTERN WHOLESALE ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC VS MARUCA

s unopposed Motion to Impose Terminating Sanctions by Striking Answer to Complaint is DENIED. (ROA 27.) Terminating sanctions are a drastic remedy. The court finds that ordering terminating sanctions would not be appropriate at this stage, as there is not sufficient evidence for the court to conclude lesser sanctions would be ineffective. This finding is without prejudice for Plaintiff to bring a renewed motion for terminating sanctions, should the circumstances warrant.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

FAULKNER VS GALLEHER CORPORATION

For administrative purposes, Galleher will need to file a clean copy of its proposed Answer to Complaint with the Court's Civil Business Office. Galleher shall have until December 17, 2019 to do so.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FAULKNER VS GALLEHER CORPORATION

For administrative purposes, Galleher will need to file a clean copy of its proposed Answer to Complaint with the Court's Civil Business Office. Galleher shall have until December 17, 2019 to do so.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CATHERINE CASTILLO VS. JORGE ESPINOZA

Demurrer to Def’s Answer to Complaint OFF CALENDAR. Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the answer filed by Defendant Jorge Espinoza was withdrawn on November 15, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

  • County

    Merced County, CA

LUIS PEZZINI VS SILVINA EMA ZOLTZMAN

Moving party has failed to establish that the Notice of Pendency of Action, dated July 24, 2019, and based on the Answer to Complaint in this matter, was not appropriately recorded pursuant to CCP § 405.20, by a “party to an action who asserts a real property claim.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PEPPER LANE OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC

Accordingly, Taylor Morrison’s motion is GRANTED. 25 26 The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested. 27 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1 NOTICE: The Court does not provide court reporters for proceedings in the complex civil 2 litigation departments.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2019

JG DUPONT CENTRE, LLC V. MATRIX BIOMED, INC.

Based on the Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff JG Dupont Centre, LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendant Matrix Biomed, Inc.’s Answer to Complaint, Without Prejudice (filed on 10-1-19), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Matrix Biomed, Inc.’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (filed on 7-3-19 and scheduled for hearing on 10-22-19) is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

RHODES V. SINGH

., hearing will be held at 3 p.m. 10/24/2019 (Dept. 501) Motion: By Defendant Jessica Nay Rhodes to Strike Defendant’s Answer to Complaint. Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion to strike without prejudice to challenging the answer pursuant to the filing of a demurrer. The parties are directed to meet and confer prior to the filing of any additional challenge to the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PMB HELIN DONOVAN, LLP V. MYECHECK, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to Complaint is denied. TENTATIVE RULING # 4: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247.), UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

IN THE MATTER OF THE SHIRLEY S. HALVERSON LIVING TRUST

Amended Petition: (1) Invalidate Instruments Based Upon Undue Influence and Lack of Capacity; (2) Restrain from Actively Participating and Using Trust Assets to Defend Litigant; (3) Compel Accounting; Complaint for Damages: (1) Financial Elder Abuse; (2) Undue Influence; (3) Cancellation of Beneficiary Designations Opposition to Amended Petition and Answer to Complaint for Damages PREGRANT ORDER Counsel to appear and be prepared to address trial setting.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.