Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Useful Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

Rulings on Civil Bench Warrant - Failure to Comply

1-25 of 10000 results

LUIS ANTONO ESCOBAR VS ANGEL CRUZ ESCOBAR GUERRA ET AL

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order amounts to discovery abuse for which terminating sanctions are warranted. There is no opposition showing substantial justification for the failure to comply with the court’s order. The court imposes total sanctions of $346.00 against Plaintiff, Luis Escobar, for the failure to comply with the court’s order, which constitutes discovery abuse. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2023.010. Such sanctions are payable within thirty (30) days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

DAVID SAYEGH VS KRISTINA LAUREN NAVARRO ET AL

The entire action is dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order of 6/6/19, requiring Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objection to all discovery within 10 days. Motion, Ex. B. Terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order amounts to discovery abuse for which terminating sanctions are warranted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

NAPALAN VS. PADAON

Cross-Defendant's general and special demurrer to the original cross-complaint is continued to Feb. 10, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in this Dept. In the meantime, moving counsel is ordered to comply with the meet and confer requirements in CCP 430.41 and file the declaration required by CCP 430.41(a) (3). Cross-Complainant's request for imposition of sanctions pursuant to CCP 128.5 based on the failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements set out above is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NAPALAN VS. PADAON

Cross-Defendant's general and special demurrer to the original cross-complaint is continued to Feb. 10, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in this Dept. In the meantime, moving counsel is ordered to comply with the meet and confer requirements in CCP 430.41 and file the declaration required by CCP 430.41(a) (3). Cross-Complainant's request for imposition of sanctions pursuant to CCP 128.5 based on the failure to comply with the meet and confer requirements set out above is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC VS. TIGRAN BADALIAN, ET

The Defendant did not file any opposition papers to show that it has or will comply with its discovery obligations. Further, the Defendant has not filed any papers to explain its failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. The Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order allows Care Auto Body Shop, Inc. to be subject to terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2017

ANTRANIK KEVORKIAN VS. PUBLIC STORAGE,INC., ET AL

The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers to show that he has or will comply with his discovery obligations. Further, the Plaintiff has not filed any papers to explain his failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order allows him to be subject to terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2018

YAQUELINE SANTIAGO VS. GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER, ET

The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers to show that she has or will comply with her discovery obligations. Further, the Plaintiff has not filed any papers to explain her failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order allows her to be subject to terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2017

GEOFRY E FONG ET AL VS JENAETTE BROWN ET AL

The plaintiffs in this matter have repeatedly failed to comply with the rules of court and have failed and refused to comply with court orders, to wit: failure to file Case Management Statements; failure to file Compliance Statements; failure to file and obtain a judgment. Plaintiffs were ordered to file a compliance statement showing cause why the entire action should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with the rules and orders of this court. Nothing has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2008

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

TIMOTHY THOMPSON VS. JONATHAN WERSHAW

The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers to show that he has or will comply with his discovery obligations. Further, the Plaintiff has not filed any papers to explain his failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order makes him subject to terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2017

JASON ROJO ET AL VS ALLEN CHANG

The Plaintiffs did not file any opposition papers to show that they have or will comply with their discovery obligations. Further, the Plaintiffs have not filed any papers to explain their failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. The Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order allows them to be subject to terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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 Defendant Mark R. Lussier, M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Court Order is GRANTED. The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed. BACKGROUND On February 13, 2015, Marie De Weese Pettibone filed a complaint against Mark R. Lussier, M.D. and Town Center Plastic Surgery for professional negligence and medical battery.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

UNIQUE FAGGINS VS OK SUN LEE

.: BC549881 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER Defendant Ok Sun Lee’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order is CONTINUED to March 28, 2017, to allow plaintiff the opportunity to obtain new counsel and to comply with the court’s December 22, 2016 order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

UNIQUE FAGGINS VS OK SUN LEE

.: BC549881 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER Defendant Ok Sun Lee’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order is CONTINUED to March 28, 2017, to allow plaintiff the opportunity to obtain new counsel and to comply with the court’s December 22, 2016 order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

IN THE MATTER OF THE L.L. THOMAS REVOCABLE TRUST DTD. NOV 13, 1992

Brown has failed to file the account, and has failed to comply with this Court's order of 1/24/19. The Court intends to find Ms. Brown in contempt for failure to comply with the order of 1/24/19. The Court intends to surcharge Ms. Brown. Discuss.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2019

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

RICK VANN ET AL VS MAURY GILES

Plaintiffs did not comply with the court’s order. Declaration of Elizabeth M. Chidi, paragraph 9. Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion and have provided no excuse for their failure to comply. The court imposes terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs, Rick Vann and Laura Soun, for failure to comply with the court’s order. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2023.030(d). The Court concludes that dismissal of the action is a sufficient sanction and that further monetary sanctions would be unjust.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

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

OLGA HINOJOSA VS BENJAMIN THOMAS CONWAY ET AL

Motion by Defendant, Benjamin Thomas Conway, for Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Prior Order of the Court and for Failure to Pay Previously Awarded Sanctions, filed on 5/1/19, is GRANTED. The complaint as alleged against Defendant, Benjamin Thomas Conway, is dismissed. Terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

NAZARETH MANOUKIAN VS VREZH AKOPYAN ET AL.

The Defendants’ papers provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there are grounds to set an OSC regarding contempt for the failure of the Plaintiff, the Cross-Defendants, and their counsel to comply with the Court’s January 26, 2017 order.

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NANCY JABER ET AL VS SLZ GARDEN INC

The court then observed there are some circumstances where such sanctions are warranted absent a failure to comply with a court order. Id at 1424.

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2019

ANUSH ALAKHVERDYAN VS SHAHIK MARDEROSS ET AL

Further, the Plaintiff has not filed any papers to explain his failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order allows him to be subject to terminating sanctions. Further, since the Plaintiff has refused to state that he intends to comply with discovery, no lesser sanction than terminating sanctions will accomplish the purposes of discovery.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2017

TRINIDAD GOMES VS AMBROGIO RETTURA ET AL

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

    Oct 21, 2016

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

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

PAULINO ALFONSO RAMOS-PADILLA, ET AL. VS HANNAH PAULA YUNGMAN, ET AL.

Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the Court’s prior order to avoid further sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the next 20 days, Defendants may renew the motion for terminating sanctions. The Court imposes sanctions of $205.40 against Plaintiff Laura Gayta for failure the to comply with a court order to provide discovery, which is a misuse of the discovery process.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

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

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.