File Complaint in CA Superior Court

Useful Rulings on Complaint

Recent Rulings on Complaint

NATALIE RUBIO , ET AL. VS GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC. , ET AL.

Because a demurrer simply challenges the sufficiency of the well-pleaded complaint, West’s demurrer on unconscionability grounds must fail. B. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, West’s demurrer to Sunbelt’s third-party cross-complaint is OVERRULED. Sunbelt is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling. DATED: July 13, 2020 _____________________ Hon. Theresa M.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

KOMIPHARM INTERNATIONAL CO LTD VS BISSOX INCORPORATED ET AL

“Under section 1338(a) of title 28 of the United States Code, federal district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over “any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents”…Section 1338 jurisdiction extends to any case “in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

LANNI V. ARMSTRONG

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660, fn. omitted; see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559 [“[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

LANNI V. ARMSTRONG

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660, fn. omitted; see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559 [“[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

CABALLERO V. CUELLER

“The general rule is that subject matter jurisdiction is determined from the face of a well- pleaded complaint. (Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, supra, 414 U.S. at p. 676, 94 S.Ct. at p. 781.) When the complaint is in an area completely preempted by federal law, the well-pleaded complaint rule is supplemented, with regard to federal-question jurisdiction, by the “complete preemption doctrine.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

SEMEIL V. DOG EAR PUBLISHING, LLC

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660, fn. omitted; see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559 [“[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

DIIORIO V. WILLIAMS

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660, fn. omitted; see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559 [“[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.”].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

HILDEBRAND V. EAN HOLDINGS, LLC

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660, fn. omitted; see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559 [“[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.”].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

PRICE V. REDDIN

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660, fn. omitted; see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559 [“[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The federal district court in this case later clarified how such counterclaims give rise to federal removal: In typical cases, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that jurisdiction be analyzed on the sole basis of the complaint. Here, since Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and chose to assert only state law claims, it would typically be a simple question and answer. Recent change to the law relating to patents has changed that typical approach.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The federal district court in this case later clarified how such counterclaims give rise to federal removal: In typical cases, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that jurisdiction be analyzed on the sole basis of the complaint. Here, since Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and chose to assert only state law claims, it would typically be a simple question and answer. Recent change to the law relating to patents has changed that typical approach.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The federal district court in this case later clarified how such counterclaims give rise to federal removal: In typical cases, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that jurisdiction be analyzed on the sole basis of the complaint. Here, since Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and chose to assert only state law claims, it would typically be a simple question and answer. Recent change to the law relating to patents has changed that typical approach.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The federal district court in this case later clarified how such counterclaims give rise to federal removal: In typical cases, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that jurisdiction be analyzed on the sole basis of the complaint. Here, since Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and chose to assert only state law claims, it would typically be a simple question and answer. Recent change to the law relating to patents has changed that typical approach.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The federal district court in this case later clarified how such counterclaims give rise to federal removal: In typical cases, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires that jurisdiction be analyzed on the sole basis of the complaint. Here, since Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and chose to assert only state law claims, it would typically be a simple question and answer. Recent change to the law relating to patents has changed that typical approach.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BERNSTEIN V. SEBRING

A well-pleaded complaint “set[s] forth the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, not the evidence by which plaintiff proposes to prove those facts.” (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211–212, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660, fn. omitted; see also Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 330, 169 P.3d 559 [“[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.”].)”

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

CREATIVE OUTDOOR DISTRIBUTOR USA, INC. V. EVERYDAYSPORTS OUTDOOR CORP.

., 486 U.S. 800, 808–809 (1988), this exclusivity covers “those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims.” Despite the simplicity with which the rule is stated, application has proven tricky.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

GUZMAN V. LA DAGA INVESTMENTS LLC.

Moreover, as of January 24, 2018, La Daga Investments, LLC is in default, and a defaulting party admits the allegations in a well-pleaded complaint. (Vasey v. California Dance Co., Inc. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 749.) Therefore, Plaintiff has borne the burden of showing the probably validity of the claim and his application for writ of attachment is granted. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §489.220, a flat amount undertaking of $10,000 is required before issuance of the writ.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2018

WESTLKAE SERVICES LLC VS GODFATHER AUTO IMPORTS OF ATLANTA L

The court considers the well-pleaded Complaint, summary of the case, declaration of Arash Yadegari, declaration of John Schwartz and the authenticated exhibits to the Schwartz declaration. The evidence supports entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC, a California Limited Liability as against Eileen Hunter and Stephanie Patel as guarantors of the loan to Godfather Auto Imports of Atlanta, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2018

VAHE TASHJIAN VS SOBERGUARD L/004 LLC ET AL

The well-pleaded Complaint together with the declaration of Plaintiff support an award of damages in the sum of $50,000 against Mr. Walshin together with an award of prejudgment interest in the sum of $15,416.67 as calculated in the separate declaration of Mr. Walshid dated 8/30/2017. In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs in the sum of $435.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK VS PATRICIA PUGLIESE ET AL

The well-pleaded Complaint together with the supporting declarations and exhibits thereto support entry of judgment in the principal sum of $28,366.40 and costs of suit in the sum of $534, or the total sum of $28,900.40. The proposed judgment is appropriate in form and is signed by the court. The court directs the clerk to enter judgment as requested on or after the date and time of hearing.

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2017

PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC VS KWANG BIN NA

The well-pleaded Complaint and the evidence in support of the judgment indicate that Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the principal sum of $53,553.31, interest in the amount of $2,244.84, attorney’s fees pursuant to the agreement between the parties in the amount of $1,961.07 and costs of $539.75.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2017

ROSE V. HEALTHCOMP, INC.

Taylor (1987) 481 U.S. 58, 63—defensive preemption does not appear on the face of well-pleaded complaint.) Conflict preemption will defeat a state law claim if it “relates to” an ERISA plan under section 514(a)’s express preemption language. (Darcangelo v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (4th Cir. 2002) 292 F.3d 181, 187.) Courts have found that Congress used the phrase “relate to” in its broadest sense, and thus the U.S.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EARL POINTER VS MARIA MARTINEZ

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, it is error to enter a default on a complaint that fails to state a cause of action against the defaulting defendant. Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 539. The court voided the default judgment apparently under this rule.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2009

1

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.