Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Useful Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

9976-10000 of 10000 results

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC. VS. AEROSPARE, LLC

Pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (p) (1), Plaintiff met its burden to prove each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract. Defendant failed to show that there was a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action. Procedural Defect: “[T]he court's power to deny summary judgment on the basis of failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350 is discretionary, not mandatory.” Truong v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

The declaration of Luke does not indicate: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) exactly when the facts giving rise to such amended allegations were discovered; or (4) why the request for amendment was not made sooner. In connection with the reply brief, Luke declares that any failure by Gaumont to fully comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 was inadvertent. (Luke Reply Decl. at ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

VELASQUEZ, ROGER VS CHAVIRA, HECTOR

Defendant Hector Chavira’s Motion to Dismiss Action for Failure to Obey Court Orders is GRANTED. CCP § 2023.010 et. seq. Defendant Hector Chavira (“Defendant”) moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Roger Velasquez and Debbie Velasquez’s (“Plaintiffs”) action pursuant to CCP section 2023.030(d)(3), which allows the court to enter an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ESPINOZA VS. ESPINOZA

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Ruling: Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Plaintiff Lorenzo Espinoza’s Motion to File Second Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, and CRC 3.1324(a),(b). Although Plaintiff is in pro per, he is expected to adhere to the California Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court when filing and serving his motions. (Pete v. Henderson (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 487, 491.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2018

SINO GOLF MANUFACTURING VS BRAINSTORM GOLF

Failure to file and/or serve an opposition constitutes an admission that a motion is meritorious. (Rooney v. Vermont Inv. Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 367; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c) (appellate rule that "failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion").) The moving papers establish, with evidence, that this Court previously ordered defendant Brainstorm Golf, Inc.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ABARCA VS. AKASH MANAGEMENT, LLC

The Court cannot enforce informal agreements to provide information not specifically ordered or requested, so the motion is denied on this issue. VI. Sanctions As noted above, the Court finds that Defendants’ failure to turn over the class list was a misuse of the discovery process and that Defendants’ responses to Special Interrogatory 13 and the identified Requests for Production was a failure to obey a Court order for further discovery. Sanctions are therefore warranted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

MICHAEL BELTRAN, ET AL. V. FPA4 ARBOR RIDGE, LLC, ET AL.AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

Motion: Cross-Defendant Beltran’s demurrer to cross-complaint Tentative Ruling: To take off calendar for failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.41, subdivision (a). Explanation: Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. §430.41(a), bold added; see Judicial Counsel form CIV-140.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THOMAS BEKONO VS ROHR INC

The Court notes plaintiff failed to oppose the motion for summary judgment as to his sixth cause of action for unlawful psychiatric exam, seventh cause of action for interference with CFRA, eighth cause of action for perceived disability discrimination, ninth cause of action for disability discrimination tenth cause of action for failure to accommodate, eleventh cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process and twentieth cause of action for violation of unfair competition law.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

THOMAS BEKONO VS ROHR INC

The Court notes plaintiff failed to oppose the motion for summary judgment as to his sixth cause of action for unlawful psychiatric exam, seventh cause of action for interference with CFRA, eighth cause of action for perceived disability discrimination, ninth cause of action for disability discrimination tenth cause of action for failure to accommodate, eleventh cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process and twentieth cause of action for violation of unfair competition law.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MORVARID MARY MOUSAVI VS. JAMES D WOODBURN MD

Failure to offer opposing UMFs - - The failure to comply with the requirement of submitting an opposition separate statement is grounds, in the court's discretion, for granting the motion. CCP §437c. P failed to submit any separate statement. P's Evidence in Opposition - - P offers her own (unverified) declaration in opposition to the Green MSJ. This is insufficient.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2014

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

IN THE MATTER OF ERIC ROSENBERG

OSC re Failure to File Petition for Final Distribution *************** On 6/6/19, the Court ordered the administrator's counsel to file an I&A by 9/4/19 and to file a petition for final distribution by 11/27/19. On 11/22/19, the I&A was filed. No petition for final distribution was filed. On 7/8/20, the Court set this OSC re Failure to File Petition for Final Distribution and ordered the mandatory appearance of Daniel Cutright. As of 8/4/20, no petition for final distribution has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

CASSIDY VS MYERS

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is procedurally defective for failure to comply with Rule 3.1350(b) and (d). The Court elects to treat defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as based on the issues set forth in defendants’ separate statement Issue Nos. 1-4: Plaintiffs’ causes of action are time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitation. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

JULIO RAMOS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Generally, two facts are prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions: (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply with a court order and (2) the failure must be willful. (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; Sauer v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 213, 227-28 (stating that willful act is a conscious or intentional failure to act as distinguished from accidental or involuntary noncompliance).) b.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

JOSE MANUEL HERNANDEZ VS MONROE COLEMAN ET AL

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c). Cal.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SWIFT FINANCIAL, LLC VS MATTHEW LEE WAY, INDIVIDUALLY

Accordingly, the hearing on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is continued to November 1, 2019 8:30 AM. Notice of the hearing is to be served in compliance with CCP § 1290.4, and proof of service of the same is to be filed with the court 16 court days in advance of the new hearing date. Failure to comply with this order may result on the hearing being placed off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

FLOYD BOYSTON (J-45612) VS ROBERT BURTON ET AL.

Thus, these omissions from the claim are enough to find Plaintiff did not comply with the Act. Further, even if Plaintiff had shown “some compliance with all the statutory requirements,” the claim still did not “substantially comply” with the Act.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS RODRIGUEZ

Because this has been continued twice before for the same failure to comply, the court's tentative ruling is to: Deny the petition to confirm arbitration award without prejudice based upon Portfolio's failure to provide proof of service of the notice of hearing, notice of non-appearance, memorandum of points and authorities and the declaration of counsel in support of petition in a manner that complies with CCP §1290.4(b).

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2011

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS BRYAN CHAMBERLAIN

The Court notes that its instructions in the December 13, 2017 Order are clear and Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the order would result in the Demurrer being taken off calendar. Accordingly, the Demurrer hereby is placed OFF-CALENDAR. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN RE: TUCKER FAMILY TRUST, DATED 9/21/16

Hoop’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s orders to (1) correct the substantive issues (probate notes), (2) meet filing deadlines and (3) serve all parties for over a year. In turn, Ms. Hermesch argues this lack of action by Mr. Hoop has caused the inability to resolve this matter efficiently and tends to demonstrate the claims alleged are without factual basis or invalid. Mr. Hoop has filed no Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and allegations thereunder.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2019

ALLIANCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION VS PETERSEN

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL by attorney Pamela Kleinkauf as counsel for defendant Kelly Peterson is GRANTED. Counsel will remain counsel of record until a hard copy of the Proof of Service showing the client was served with the signed Order is brought directly to the clerk in Department 70. (CRC Rule 3.1362(e)) Failure to do so may result in a delay in processing the withdrawal. (2) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT by defendant Kelly Peterson is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALLIANCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION VS PETERSEN

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL by attorney Pamela Kleinkauf as counsel for defendant Kelly Peterson is GRANTED. Counsel will remain counsel of record until a hard copy of the Proof of Service showing the client was served with the signed Order is brought directly to the clerk in Department 70. (CRC Rule 3.1362(e)) Failure to do so may result in a delay in processing the withdrawal. (2) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT by defendant Kelly Peterson is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALLIANCE INVESTMENT CORPORATION VS PETERSEN

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL by attorney Pamela Kleinkauf as counsel for defendant Kelly Peterson is GRANTED. Counsel will remain counsel of record until a hard copy of the Proof of Service showing the client was served with the signed Order is brought directly to the clerk in Department 70. (CRC Rule 3.1362(e)) Failure to do so may result in a delay in processing the withdrawal. (2) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT by defendant Kelly Peterson is SUSTAINED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SLOANE HARRISON VS THE VONS COMPANIES INC ET AL

The court, at defendants’ insistence, altered its tentative to make the denial of the motion to be without prejudice to a renewed motion notwithstanding defendants’ failure in making the motion in the first instance. That motion was denied in October 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2018

CHESNEY VS MARLU INVESTMENT GROUP LLC

The Court additionally notes that these defects with regard to notice and specificity appear to be more than inadvertent. As to other defects, Defendants filed an errata to resolve the issues. But, as to providing specificity, Defendants did not make such an effort – suggesting that the lack of specificity serves a purpose for Defendants. That purpose appears to stem from Plaintiffs' own failure to comply with certain procedural requirements.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PAUL FELLER V. BETH GRANT

Mother filed this OSC re contempt on 2/27 and set it for 4/2; there is POS in the file showing Citee was served 3/4/19; the OSC is for attorney fees of $8,000 that were awarded and payable on 12/30/2018; the declaration of attorney Jarrette reports she has not been paid and seeks a contempt order after trial for failure to comply with the Court’s order.

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2019

  « 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.