Answer to Complaint

Useful Rulings on Answer

Recent Rulings on Answer

HENRY ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ VS MICHELE BRAVO, ET AL.

Defendants Michelle Bravo’s and Daniel Bravo’s unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Complaint is GRANTED. Background Plaintiff Henry Anthony Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Michele Bravo (“Michele”) and Daniel Bravo (“Daniel”) (collectively, “Defendants”) are married; Michele is Plaintiff’s daughter. On or about October 21, 2015, Plaintiff and Daniel entered into a written agreement, wherein Plaintiff loaned Daniel $8,500.00 to purchase a Suzuki motorcycle.

  • Hearing

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS BRITE LITE ENTERPRISES, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Case No. 19SMCV01403 Hearing Date 11/19/2020 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint (Continued from 8/21/2020) On August 21, 2020 the court held a hearing on plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer in which plaintiff argued since defendant’s corporate status was FTB suspended, defendant could not appear and the court must strike its answer. The hearing was continued to November 19, 2020, giving defendant ninety days to restore its corporate status. 8/21/2020 minute order, pg. 2.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

Request For Judicial Notice Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (1) Answer to Complaint; (2) Grant Deed recorded February 18, 2014; (3) Application for Guardian Ad Litem filed by Iva Dominguez on March 4, 2019 in this action; (4) Death Certificate of Mario Campana. Request Nos. 1 and 3 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records). Request No. 2 is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of recorded documents. (Alfaro v.

  • Hearing

GREGORY DEL PAPA, ET AL. VS SHAHLA CHARM

On 4/24/20, Defendant filed her Answer to Complaint asserting a general denial and 10 affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs now demur to the answer. Plaintiffs argue none of the affirmative defenses are supported by factual allegations, and thus, the affirmative defenses are improperly pled. In opposition, Defendant contends the affirmative defenses merely deny elements Plaintiffs must prove at trial, and that Defendant would waive the defenses if not pled, which discovery may ultimately support.

  • Hearing

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

Request For Judicial Notice Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (1) Answer to Complaint; (2) Grant Deed recorded February 18, 2014; (3) Application for Guardian Ad Litem filed by Iva Dominguez on March 4, 2019 in this action; (4) Death Certificate of Mario Campana. Request Nos. 1 and 3 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records). Request No. 2 is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of recorded documents. (Alfaro v.

  • Hearing

ROMULO CASIANO GOMEZ VS BMC STOCK HOLDING

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473). Defendant is ordered to file the first amended answer forthwith. This action arises from an incident that occurred on 10/19/16. Plaintiff alleges that he fell on Defendant’s property because of a dangerous condition. Plaintiff alleges claims for premises liability and negligence.

  • Hearing

ROMULO CASIANO GOMEZ VS BMC STOCK HOLDING

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to Complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473). Defendant is ordered to file the first amended answer forthwith. This action arises from an incident that occurred on 10/19/16. Plaintiff alleges that he fell on Defendant’s property because of a dangerous condition. Plaintiff alleges claims for premises liability and negligence.

  • Hearing

ANDREW MCGINNIS, ET AL. VS SAN MARINO GARDENS WELLNESS CENTER, LP

Moving Party: Plaintiff Andrew McGinnis, by and through successor in interest Responding Party: Defendant Pasadena Hospital Association, Ltd. dba Huntington Memorial Hospital RELIEF REQUESTED: Sustain demurrer to Answer to Complaint SUMMARY OF FACTS: Plaintiffs allege that all times mentioned decedent John A. McGinnis was an elder, as that term is defined in Welfare & Institutions Code section 15610.27.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SUPERIOR COURT VS. BRENT OSTER FL COMPLAINT

Pleading examples: Complaint or Answer to Complaint. There is a general policy in this state of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings at any stage of the litigation to allow cases to be decided on their merits. (Desny v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 715, 751.) See also Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Ca. 2d 13, 19; Nestle v City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Ca. 3d. 920, 939; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 188 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.

  • Hearing

PARKER VS. CHAMNESS BIODEGRADABLES, LLC

The definitions defined Answer as “‘Defendants’ Answer to Complaint” dated, signed and served on February 25, 2019, and all superseding answers filed by YOU if any.” Therefore, Defendant was required to respond based on its operative answer filed on February 25, 2019. Accordingly, the request to compel further responses to Request Nos. 1 and 2 is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to provide further responses to these Requests within 20 days of the notice of this order.

  • Hearing

VERNON MCKINNEY ET AL. VS RAVI SANWAL AND MANITA SANWAL

to complaint]; and Exhibit K [tenant’s civil rights action against City of Stockton] 3.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. V. HOGAN

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for judicial notice of “all pleadings, declarations, motions, orders, proceedings, rulings and other court records on file in the within action, including Defendant's Answer to Complaint…” is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings is also GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

ANNA RIZHAVSKAYA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Answer to complaint to be filed within 20 days. B. The Case Management Conference is continued to 2/4/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. T. New CMC statements are required per Local Rules. Meet and confer required prior to CMC per Local Rules. 1. INTRODUCTION Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“AHM”) demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Anna Rizhavskaya (“Plaintiff.”) At issue is the sixth cause of action (“COA”) for Fraud. 2.

  • Hearing

ANNA RIZHAVSKAYA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Answer to complaint to be filed within 20 days. B. The Case Management Conference is continued to 2/4/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. T. New CMC statements are required per Local Rules. Meet and confer required prior to CMC per Local Rules. 1. INTRODUCTION Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“AHM”) demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Anna Rizhavskaya (“Plaintiff.”) At issue is the sixth cause of action (“COA”) for Fraud. 2.

  • Hearing

ORNETHA BUTLER VS MANUEL D. TEJEDA TRUCKING INC

.: 20STCV07356 Hearing Date: September 15, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Background Plaintiff Ornetha Butler (“Plaintiff”) allegedly was involved in a motor vehicle collision with a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Manuel Tejeda Trucking (“Defendant”).

  • Hearing

RAFAEL TORRES, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TECHNION CONTRACTORS TCI, INC., A CORPORATION

On 9/5/20, Technion filed its answer to complaint. On 11/14/19, Great Divide Insurance Co and its Third-Party Administrator Berkley Entertainment (collectively, “Intervenor”) filed a Complaint in Intervention. Intervenor asserts that its insured, Asbestos Instant Response, Inc. dba Air Demolition & Environmental Solutions ("AIR''), was Plaintiff’s employer when the subject incident occurred.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVELYNE KRIEG, ET AL. VS B.V. GENERAL, INC. , ET AL.

General, Inc. dba Leisure Vale Retirement Hotel’s Answer to Complaint is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant B.V. General, Inc. dba Leisure Vale Retirement Hotel’s Answer to Complaint is DENIED. GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT INC VS MEMOS SCAFFOLDING NORWALK

Regarding the electronic filing fees, Defendants state that the costs incurred were for the following: Court filing fee for Bernards’ Answer to Complaint: $49.95, Court filing fee Selma’s Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee Bernards’ Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee MSJ: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66. (Supp. Strong Decl. ¿ 15.)

  • Hearing

ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL VS THE VOLLRATH C

Levine’s Answer to Complaint the Wisconsin Action. Q. The Scheduling Order in the Wisconsin Action. R. Decision and Order on Summary Judgment in the Wisconsin Action. S. Excerpts from the true and correct copy of the Transcript of the Video Deposition of Richard R. Koehl (Defendant in this action), dated June 21, 2018, in the Wisconsin Action. This document was attached as an exhibit to one of AFTT Parties’ motions in limine filed in the Wisconsin Action. T.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

: RILEY V. COLE

Defendant's Motion Withdraw First Amended Answer to Complaint and Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Answer is denied. The motion was not timely filed or served. CCP section 1005 requires the motion to be filed by August 6, 2020. It was not filed until August 20, 2020. The motion was required to be served by August 1, 2020. There is no proof of service. As the motion was not signed until August 19, 2020, it could not have been timely served.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

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

C/O: 11-30-20 TRIAL: 12-15-20 PROCEEDINGS: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP §435) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED. However, the Court sets an OSC Hearing re Legal Representation of Defendant for October 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

  • Hearing

NANCY RIVERA VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 19STCV42825 Hearing Date: August 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Background Plaintiff Nancy Rivera (“Plaintiff”) allegedly slipped and fell at a store owned and operated by Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”).

  • Hearing

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS BRITE LITE ENTERPRISES, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Case No. 19SMCV01403 Hearing Date 8/21/2020 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint Inter Shipping Line, Inc. sold goods or provided services (the complaint does not specify which) to defendant, which allegedly failed to pay. Inter Shipping assigned its debt to plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau. Plaintiff now moves to strike defendant Brite Lite Enterprises’ answer on the grounds that Brite Lite’s corporate status has been suspended.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

HANCOCK VS. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT AUTO

HEARING ON MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant’s motion to amend its answer is granted. Such motions are liberally allowed and plaintiff has demonstrated no prejudice in granting leave to amend in this recently filed case. The amended answer is ordered to be filed within 10 of this hearing.

  • Hearing

CADLES OF WEST VA VS. 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 filed on June 13, 2019 (and exhibits thereto). The Court need not take judicial notice of pleadings in its own file. The Request is denied.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.