Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Useful Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

26-50 of 10000 results

TAM LE VS. CURTIS SMITH

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Compliance - Case Management Program is scheduled for 03/04/2010 at 08:30 AM in Department 39. Attorney Stanley Phan failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file a Case Management Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. 2. Failure to have all answers/default judgments on file in accordance with court order of 09/10/2009.

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2009

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE V. ROBERT CERVANTEZ

Implicit in this decision is a choice not to comply with any obligations or related court orders. Such a conscious failure to act is sufficient to render Defendant’s conduct willful. (See Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787.) Therefore, the Court finds Defendant’s failure to comply is willful. Defendant also argues that these facts do not warrant a terminating sanction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

ROBERT SETH ASTLE VS. NANCY HOPKINS AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MAURICE A HOPKINS

Failure to comply with CMP rules may result in sanctions (included, but not limited to, dismissal of the action) under Local Rule 11.12 (CMP) Pursuant to Local Rule 11.15 (CMP), an Attorney's Compliance Statement shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. Attorney C Kristine White failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file an Attorney's Compliance Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.15.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2010

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PEREZ VS MARTIR

In addition, Plaintiff has chosen not to respond to this Motion. Given Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's January 2019 order and Plaintiff's failure to respond to this Motion as well as the fast approaching law & motion and discovery deadline and trial date of July 12, 2019, the Court infers that Plaintiff has chosen to drop out of this lawsuit. The Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint dismissed as a result of Plaintiff's willful failure to comply with the Court's prior order.

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

STEPAN MELNIK VS. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Plaintiff's have failed to comply with the Court's order of January 21, 2010. Court orders sanctions against Stepan Melnik in the sum of $ 150.00, payable to Court by 05/24/2010. Failure to comply with Court's order of January 21, 2010. Court orders sanctions against Lyubov Melnik in the sum of $ 150.00, payable to Court by 05/24/2010. Failure to comply with Court's order of January 21, 2010.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SANTANA ESG, INC. ET AL VS. IRWIN WELKER ET AL

DEMURRER TO CROSS COMPLAINT Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday October 7, 2016, line 3. CROSS DEFENDANT UMPQUA BANK DEMURRER TO CROSS COMPLAINT by no later than 9:00 a.m. on October 7, 2016 counsel for cross-complainant, Robert Borris, Jr, is ordered to file, serve and provide a courtesy copy of a Declaration explaining his (1) failure to comply with CCP 430.41; (2) failure to comply with CCP 1005; and (3) failure to comply with SF Local Rule 2.7B. =(501/SRB)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2016

CHAKER VS. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY

On January 13, 2017, the court ordered Plaintiff to respond to discovery by January 27, 2107 and to pay sanctions of $750 to Defendants' counsel. Plaintiff has failed to do either. Therefore, there is a clear failure to comply. The court finds that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the discovery process is willful.

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

CITIBANK NA VS. PAVEL CATAN

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt - Case Management Program is scheduled for 12/04/2008 at 08:30 AM in Department 39. Attorney Janalie Henriques failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file an Attorney Compliance Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. 2. Failure to comply with previos court orders.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2008

GROENIGER & CO VS GOLD WEST CONSTRUCTION.INC.. ET AL

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Court orders sanctions against Attorney, Robert J Stroj in the sum of $150.00, payable to Court by 10/27/2008. Sanctions imposed for failure to comply with the 5/29/2008 Minute Order of Department 43. The Order to Show Cause issued against Attorney for Cross Complainant: Robert J Stroh for failure to comply with the 3/17/2008 minute order of Department 43 is being continued for failure to comply with the 5/29/2008 minute order of Department 43.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2008

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOTIE DOLLSON VS. PETER BURNS

Failure to comply with CMP rules may result in sanctions (included, but not limited to, dismissal of the action) under Local Rule 11.12 (CMP) Pursuant to Local Rule 11.15 (CMP), an Attorney's Compliance Statement shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. Attorney Geoffrey O Evers failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file a Case Management Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055.

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2011

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING INC VS. DELMASTRO AND EELLS INC

Failure to comply with CMP rules may result in sanctions (included, but not limited to, dismissal of the action) under Local Rule 11.12 (CMP) Pursuant to Local Rule 11.15 (CMP), an Attorney's Compliance Statement shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. Attorney Sandra A Edwards failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file a Case Management Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2011

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITIBANK NA VS. PAVEL CATAN

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt - Case Management Program is scheduled for 12/04/2008 at 08:30 AM in Department 39. Attorney Janalie Henriques failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file an Attorney Compliance Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. 2. Failure to comply with previos court orders.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2008

KRISTI CORDOVA. ET AL. VS. ROBERT M. MERRITT

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Compliance - Case Management Program is scheduled for 05/29/2008 at 08:30 AM in Department 44. This matter is set for an Order to Show Cause Re: Compliance. KRISTI CORDOVA and LARRIE CORDOVA, plaintiff pro pers, failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file a case management statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. 2. Failure to comply with CMP timelines.

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2008

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Steven Rodda

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

OWEN VS. NGUYEN

Owen’s declaration attached to the opposition shows that her failure to comply with the court’s discovery order of July 10, 2017, was due to her counsel’s failure to inform her of the fact that the court ordered her deposition for August 1, 2017, and not due to a willful failure to comply. (Owen Decl. at p. 1.) Specifically, Owen declares her counsel at the time, Robert J.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2017

TED UNARCE OF GTC HOLDING VS. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt - Case Management Program is scheduled for 12/18/2008 at 08:30 AM in Department 39. Plaintiff's Ted Unarce of GTC Holding and Setya Djoenadi failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file an Attorney Compliance Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. 2. Failure to comply with previous court orders.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2008

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BRIANNA BUFFINGTON VS. SHAWN CAMPBELL

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt - Case Management Program is scheduled for 12/04/2008 at 08:30 AM in Department 39. Attorney E John Overton failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to comply with previous court orders. 2. Failure to file an Attorney Compliance Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2008

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIE DE WEESE PETTIBONE VS MARC R LUSSIER MD ET AL

.: BC572608 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER MOVING PARTY: Defendant Marc R. Lussier, M.D. RESPONDING PARTY: None Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Court Order On February 23, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s request to continue the hearing on defendant Mark R. Lussier, M.D.’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with court order to April 7, 2017. The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2017

LANCE J BRITT VS. EDWARD H FULTON

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt - Case Management Program is scheduled for 12/04/2008 at 08:30 AM in Department 39. Attorney Ronald J Britt failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file an Attorney Compliance Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. 2. Failure to comply with previous court orders.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2008

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MAGALI AGUILAR VS WILLIAM COLE

The Court imposes total sanctions of $1,060.00 for both motions against Defendant, William Cole, whose failure to comply with the Court’s order to respond to discovery required Plaintiff to incur costs and whose failure to serve a timely response to the Requests for Admission necessitated the motion. Id. Such sanctions are payable within 45 days. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MAGALI AGUILAR VS WILLIAM COLE

The Court imposes total sanctions of $1,060.00 for both motions against Defendant, William Cole, and is counsel of record, McClaugherty & Associates, whose failure to comply with the Court’s order to respond to discovery required Plaintiff to incur costs and whose failure to serve a timely response to the Requests for Admission necessitated the motion. Id. Such sanctions are payable within 45 days. Court clerk is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SKYE BOGEAUX VS WALGREENS

A simple lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party knew there was an obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to do so. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 787. A “conscious or intentional failure to act, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary noncompliance, is sufficient to invoke a penalty.” Id. at 787-88. The party with the obligation to respond to discovery bears the burden of showing that the failure to respond or comply was not willful. Cornwall v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2017

RAYNA BRAND VS. CONSTANCE BAKER-COHN ET AL

Motion For Terminating Sanctions For Failure To Comply With Court Order Compelling Discovery Set for hearing on Wednesday, March 18, 2015, Line 3, Motion For Terminating Sanctions For Failure To Comply With Court Order Compelling Discovery. (Duplicate entry - for tentative ruling only.) (Part 2 of 2.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2015

TED UNARCE OF GTC HOLDING VS. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt - Case Management Program is scheduled for 12/18/2008 at 08:30 AM in Department 39. Plaintiff's Ted Unarce of GTC Holding and Setya Djoenadi failed to comply with the following: 1. Failure to file an Attorney Compliance Statement in accordance with Local Rule 11.055. 2. Failure to comply with previous court orders.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2008

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AMIR SHAMBAYATE VS SALVADOR DELGADO

Monetary sanctions of $335 are imposed against Plaintiff for his failure to comply with the court’s order. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ANGURALA V. RRE YORBA LINDA HOLDINGS, LLC

Motion No. 1 Although the moving papers made it sound like the motion was based on both a failure to pay sanctions and a failure to provide court-ordered discovery responses, it is clear from the Opposition and Reply (and also from the papers filed on Motion 2) that the only failure to comply with court orders at issue here is as to payment of monetary sanctions. (Per Motion 2, responses to the FROGs at issue had undisputedly been provided before the Court’s 9/19/19 order had even issued.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  « 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 gather your results.