Complaint in Intervention?

Useful Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

Recent Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

JOSE RUDY ORTEGA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ROBERT MATHEW YELLOW-OWL, AN INDIVIDUAL

The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

DAWN GIBBS VS RECREATION VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ET AL

(BC710216) _____________________________________________ Proposed Intervenor Amtrust International Underwriters, DAC’s MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Global Experience Specialists, Inc.[1] Tentative Ruling Proposed Intervenor Amtrust International Underwriters, DAC’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint-In-Intervention is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NORMA IFRAZ VS. GILMER PACAHUAL

Gallagher Bassett Services, Third Party Administrator for First Student/First Student Group America, Insured by American Home Assurance ("Gallagher") filed a complaint-in-intervention. Scavengers Construction has moved for summary judgment against both plaintiffs and the "going and coming" rule, and the uncontroverted facts show none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule apply to bring the accident within the scope of Mr. Cucho's employment. Plaintiffs Ms. Ifraz and Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

JON CRITTENDEN VS LAURA A LAMBERT

The Petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).) “The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LATTIMORE VS VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is granted leave to file its proposed Complaint-in-Intervention, within 10 days of the date of this order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

RAFAEL TORRES, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TECHNION CONTRACTORS TCI, INC., A CORPORATION

On 11/14/19, Great Divide Insurance Co and its Third-Party Administrator Berkley Entertainment (collectively, “Intervenor”) filed a Complaint in Intervention. Intervenor asserts that its insured, Asbestos Instant Response, Inc. dba Air Demolition & Environmental Solutions ("AIR''), was Plaintiff’s employer when the subject incident occurred. The court notes that on 8/17/20, Technion filed notice of the instant hearing showing service on the other parties.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CAROLINA BARLOW VS JACOB ESPINOSA, ET AL.

The separately lodged copy of the complaint-in-intervention is deemed filed as of today’s date. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JOSE R. BOLANOS VIGIL VS JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. A CORPORATION

Intervener is ordered to file a separate copy of the complaint-in-intervention within five days. Intervener is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

MYLENE FAROOQ VS. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL.

in intervention or answer in intervention, a party may move, demur, or otherwise plead to the complaint in intervention or answer in intervention in the same manner as to an original complaint or answer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

AUGUSTO GAMBOA VS T&T TRUCKING GROUP, ET AL.

Intervenor is ordered to file its answer-in-intervention and cross-complaint-in-intervention forthwith. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

AUGUSTO GAMBOA VS T&T TRUCKING GROUP, ET AL.

Intervenor is ordered to file its answer-in-intervention and cross-complaint-in-intervention forthwith. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

MARIA ROSALES ROSALES VS E2 FAMILY WINERY ET AL.

The court having read and considered proposed intervener Star Insurance Company’s unopposed motion for leave to file a complaint in intervention and good cause appearing therefrom, proposed intervenor’s motion is GRANTED. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

ESPINOSA V. CITY OF CLOVIS ET AL.

The proposed Complaint in Intervention shall be filed and served on all parties within 10 days of service of the order by the clerk. Explanation: A nonparty has the right to intervene in litigation between others where the nonparty claims an interest in the property or transaction involved in such litigation, and is so situated that any disposition rendered in the person’s absence “may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

OLAMENDI VS. MIDWEST ROOFING CO., INC.

Proposed Intervenor Tokio Marine Specialty Insurance Company moves for an order for leave to file a Complaint in Intervention pursuant to the mandatory prong, or alternatively, the permissive prong of Code of Civil Procedure section 387. However, Intervenor failed to demonstrate that it properly served its moving papers. The proof of service shows Intervenor omitted the street address for Plaintiff’s counsel’s office.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

DANIEL DE ANDA VS SAHARA SCAFFOLD

Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company shall file and serve its complaint in intervention by no later than September 24, 2020. Any party who has an interest in the matter in litigation may intervene in a pending action or proceeding. CCP § 387(a). The party seeking to intervene must have a direct and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Gerlach (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 299, 303-305.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEREMY DETTMERING VS. ESTATE OF JAMES KING

It may file a complaint in intervention in this action and then, as a proper party, move the court for whatever relief it deems just and proper. Alternatively, it may move in the Kern County to abate that action as there is another action (i.e., this one) pending. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT INC VS MEMOS SCAFFOLDING NORWALK

Regarding the electronic filing fees, Defendants state that the costs incurred were for the following: Court filing fee for Bernards’ Answer to Complaint: $49.95, Court filing fee Selma’s Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee Bernards’ Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee MSJ: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66. (Supp. Strong Decl. ¿ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

STEVEN WENER DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF AGENT ZIP INC VS JOHNSON

Opcity is directed to separately file the [PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND INTERPLEADER with the Court and promptly effect service on Defendants in Intervention.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

NAREZ VS. G&K SERVICES

Truck must separately file its Complaint in Intervention within two weeks.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

SINGH V. HAMID

“Appellant also contends that the court erred in discharging the receiver while the complaint in intervention was not determined. As stated in High on Receivers, 4th ed. 974, 975: ‘* * * The power of a court of equity to remove or discharge a receiver * * * may be regarded as well settled, and it may be exercised at any stage of the litigation.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

DEVON LORE KNIGHT VS DOG CLUB LLC ET AL

The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” DISCUSSION As an initial matter, the motion is timely. The parties stipulated to several extensions for Garcia to file an answer, and Plaintiff does not dispute that the deadline was May 12, 2020. (OCIC’s Motion, p.3:18.) When Plaintiff did not file an answer, OCIC was on notice that its interests were not being represented by Garcia.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

FRANKLIN R. FRALEY, JR. VS FORD SERVISS, ET AL.

His employer’s workers’ compensation insurer filed a complaint in intervention for reimbursement. (Id. at pp. 862-863.) After the underlying case settled, but the worker’s compensation insurer claim remained unresolved. (Id. at p. 863.) Counsel for the individual and the worker’s compensation insurer signed a stipulation that the settlement funds would be deposited in defense counsel’s client trust account and any withdrawal would require signatures of both parties. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

BRENDA SCOTT ET AL. VS TERA GALLEGOS ET AL.

The Stockton Unified School District’s unopposed motion to intervene and to file a Complaint in Intervention and accompanying submissions is GRANTED. Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

Co. filed its complaint in intervention. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Cheng, without prejudice. On May 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Zhigang Yang (“Yang”) was substituted in lieu of Doe 1. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants A. Lin, Han, S. Li, Yang, Moon and Does 1-10 for: On August 10, 2020, A. Lin’s and S. Li’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 65     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.