Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Useful Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Recent Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

9976-10000 of 10000 results

FRANK ISZAK BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST HACER SERPIL GOLE-ISZAK VS. S-H OPCO CARMEL VALLEY LLC

Neglect includes, but is not limited to, the failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs, and the failure to protect from health and safety hazards. (Id. at § 15610.57(b)(2), (b)(3).) In short, neglect under the EADACPA refers "to the failure of those responsible for attending to the basic needs and comforts of elderly or dependent adults, regardless of their professional standing, to carry out their custodial obligations." (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 30 Cal.4th 23, 34.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAN JUAN MUSIC GROUP LTD VS PATRICK VASQUEZ ET AL

Restraining Order A judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned. CCP § 708.520(a). Section 708.510 authorizes a court, upon the motion of a judgment creditor, to order a judgment debtor to assign a right to payment to the judgment creditor.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

245 SPALDING PARTNERS, L.P. VS EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

EVERST INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 19SMCV00953 Hearing Date: August 5, 2020 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel GRANT. There is a proof of service filed, and no opposition has been filed. Counsel for plaintiff has complied with all requirements.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WILLIAMS VS BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL

Continued to 9-3-20 at 8:30 a.m. to allow meet and confer as required by CCP §§ 2016.040 and 2030.300(b)(1). Moving party is file a declaration at least ten court days before the next hearing describing the meet and confer efforts and the issues, if any, that remain unresolved. No further briefing will be accepted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS ASHBYR O RAMOS ET AL

CCP § 1048 grants discretion to the trial courts to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both action, and avoid inconsistent results by hearing and deciding common issues together. (See Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

IN RE THE ESTATE OF KURT ANDREW COULAPIDES, DECEASED

Notice must be re-done to give proper notice to any creditors and interested persons. 2. Notice of Hearing, item 6.b: The address for the department is not 600 Union Avenue. The Notice of Hearing must be re-filed and re-served to provide the correct information about the hearing date to interested persons and creditors. 3. There is no affidavit of publication on file. (Probate Code § 8124.) DMS

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

MORAN, MICHAEL VS. VANERT, SARAH ET AL

The Court does however award additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $650 to be paid within 14 days' notice of this order, along with the previously ordered responses to discovery. Defendants shall submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within 2 weeks.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

While Defendant probably could have made good faith responses earlier, Plaintiff's counsel fails to acknowledge her failings that have contributed to the delay in receiving further discovery responses. Plaintiff's errors have caused the defendants in this case to expend unnecessary efforts to understand the errors and to address issues raised by such errors. Further, Defendant's argument as to the requests being overly burdensome appear to have been made in good faith. No sanctions are awarded.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHAD PADILLA VS LIMITLESS TRADING CO., LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, ET AL.

First Prong Defendant moves to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that the sole cause of action arises from a protected activity, to wit, the filing of a complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

NORTH COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION VS. VAYA TELECOM INC

Failure to file opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) The judgment is hereby amended according to the request made in Defendant/Judgment Creditor VAYA TELECOM, INC.'s amended reply.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

That request was rejected for failure to provide a complete default packet. The principal amount sought on the loan was $18,000.00. (Id. at ¶9.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks to reclassify this action because the amount of interest, costs and attorney’s fees increase the total amount sought beyond $25,000.00, those additional damages are not relevant to the Court’s jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

DURAN VS BARTELL HOTELS MANAGEMENT COMPANY [EFILE]

Plaintiff shall file a report as to the unclaimed checks and distribution of the cy pres. Alternatively, plaintiff has the option to deposit all unclaimed checks, including the absent class members, with the California State Controller's Office, pursuant to the unclaimed property laws. The court finds the terms are fair and in compliance with the requirements of Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1800-1801 (1996).

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MERCADO, FERNANDO PONCE ET AL VS ROBERTSON, NICK ET AL

On the Court's own motion the matter is continued to August 12, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

SCHUELKE INTERVIVOS REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT CHARLES SCHUELKE TRUSTEE VS WILLIAMS

However, plaintiff alleges he is entitled to rescission based upon mistake, a failure of consideration, an illegal contract or fraudulently inducement. Defendants' demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. Defendants' demurrer to the second cause of action for conversion is sustained, with leave to amend. Defendants argue plaintiff's contract attached as exhibit A, includes a promissory note with installment payments, supporting defendants' position the contract has not been paid in full.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STANLEY E GROSZ VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FEE ADMINISTRATION, A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Any party that desires to do so may file a timely motion to disqualify Judge Lu. Before addressing the merits of Defendants’ demurrer or any other substantive issues, the Court will require each party to state whether that party requests a continuance of the hearing so as to enable that party to bring a disqualification motion or whether instead that party waives any right to bring a disqualification motion and wishes to proceed with the demurrer as scheduled for August 5, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GEORGE T KELLY ET AL VS CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRODUCT LIABILITY -- FAILURE TO WARN Plaintiffs assert the seventh cause of action for product liability -- failure to warn, against defendants Bellicum, CHLA, Kapoor, Pulsipher, McFarren, Abdel-Azim, and Dietz. Defendants Bellicum, CHLA, Kapoor, Pulsipher, McFarren, Abdel-Azim, and Dietz demur to the seventh cause of action for product liability -- failure to warn.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Court further ordered that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of Hasley’s Complaint at the continued hearing date of August 5, 2020. On July 20, 2020, Hasley filed a notice of completion of deposition, which Strauther does not appear to dispute. Therefore, Marianne Strauther’s Motion to Dismiss Antanesha Hansley’s Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Court clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

FRANK ISZAK BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST HACER SERPIL GOLE-ISZAK VS. S-H OPCO CARMEL VALLEY LLC

Neglect includes, but is not limited to, the failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs, and the failure to protect from health and safety hazards. (Id. at § 15610.57(b)(2), (b)(3).) In short, neglect under the EADACPA refers "to the failure of those responsible for attending to the basic needs and comforts of elderly or dependent adults, regardless of their professional standing, to carry out their custodial obligations." (Delaney v. Baker (1999) 30 Cal.4th 23, 34.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID ELLIS, ET AL. VS LENCO CONSTRUCTION, ET AL.

Second, Plaintiffs fail to submit a proposed form of judgment on Form No. JUD-100. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(6).) This form is of particular importance where the Court cannot sufficiently determine the amount of damages sought in the request for entry of default judgment, because the CIV-100 form is confusing, with multiple columns and a failure to describe what is owed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BOGGS EQUIPMENT & ENGINEERING, INC ET AL VS RIVER PARTNERS ET AL

Cross-Complainant River Partners' demurrer to the first, third and seventh affirmative defenses in the Second Amended Answer to Cross-Complaint is overruled. Cross-Defendant shall prepare a form of Order.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

SOTO VS DOUGLAS ENGLAND INTERPRETERS UNLIMITED

Plaintiff must prepare and serve a verified statement of compliance to Defendant’s Requests for Documents within ten calendar days after the hearing. Plaintiff and her attorneys of record jointly and severally must pay attorney fee sanctions of $1,050 and costs of $60, totaling $1,110, to Defendant within ten days of this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

SHEFA LMV, INC. VS HENKLE CORPORATION, ET AL.

The civil penalty amount is reasonable considering Defendants agreed to the conditions in the Proposed Consent Judgment, the nature and extent of the violation, Defendants’ quick response to remedy the violations, the economic effect of the penalty on Defendants, Defendants’ good faith effort to timely comply with the statute and agree to reformulation, and the fact the amount of civil penalties was the result of numerous and protected arms-length negotiations between the Parties.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT KHALILI VS APPLE INC.

Knowledge, either actual or constructive, of a dangerous condition is key to establishing liability. (Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472, 476.) Furthermore, where a plaintiff “relies on the failure to correct a dangerous condition to prove…negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the owner had notice of the defect and sufficient time to correct it.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANICE KAUFMAN VS FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides, in relevant part: On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

ELAINE FERREIRA DE ARAUJO VS JAMES S ANDERSEN MD ET AL

Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  « first    1 ... 395 396 397 398 399 400

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.