Complaint in Intervention?

Useful Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

Recent Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

1476-1500 of 1607 results

JOHN PERNIZ VS. SEQUOIA VENTURES INC.

s motion for leave to file complaint in intervention will be heard at 9:30am in Department 220, Hon. James J. McBride presiding. = (503/TLJ)

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2013

60 RAUSCH STREET HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A VS. 60 RAUSCH, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL

Notice Of Motion For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention Matter on calendar for Thursday, December 20, 2012, Line 21, INTERVENOR ARROWOOD SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY's Motion For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention. Granted. No opposition filed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2012

EXTREME FIRE PROTECTION INC VS JIM BELL ET AL

There are several cross-complaints filed by Armstrong, the architect, the civil engineer and subcontractors as well as a complaint in intervention. On January 17, 2012, the court ordered a global discovery stay in this case pending further review because of a criminal investigation of Armstrong that was instigated by Bell. The court lifted the stay as of May 10, 2012.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES/JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY VS. WESTECH INDUSTRIES INC

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Per the Case Management Statement, Defendant states a Complaint in Intervention may be filed in this case. All answers/responsive pleadings or defaults must be on file by 5/9/2013. This matter is referred to the Trial Setting Process effective 6/6/2013, to allow discovery to be completed This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NORMA HEREDIA ET AL VS CITRIX SYSTEMS INCORPORATED ET AL

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest has filed a complaint in intervention for recovery of workers’ compensation benefits. Demurrer Citrix demurs on the grounds that plaintiffs fail to state facts to constitute the fourth cause of action for premises liability and the complaint is uncertain as to all causes of action. 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2012

KEN STRAW VS. JOHN KIM

All answers/responsive pleadings or defaults, to the Complaint of Ken and Marian Straw, and to the Complaint in Intervention of Maryland Casualty Company, must be on file by 3/21/2013. This matter is referred to the Trial Setting Process effective 4/18/2013, to allow discovery to be completed and the bankruptcy to proceed. This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

EUROCOPTER A FRENCH COMPANY VS. AERO UNION CORPORATION

Simplex's complaint in intervention shall be filed upon presentment to the clerk and payment of the requisite filing fee. In the current action, plaintiff Eurocopter claims a right to the intellectual property arising from the development of a Retractable Pumping System ("RPS") for the Eurocopter Super Puma EC225 helicopter for firefighting and other purposes. The rights to this property allegedly arose from a 2008 agreement between Eurocopter and defendant Aero Union for the development of said system.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2012

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EXTREME FIRE PROTECTION INC VS JIM BELL ET AL

There are several cross-complaints filed by Armstrong, the architect, the civil engineer and subcontractors as well as a complaint in intervention. On January 17, 2012, the court ordered a global discovery stay in this case pending further review because of a criminal investigation instigation of Armstrong that was instigated by Bell. The court lifted the stay as of May 10, 2012. The court of appeal ordered a temporary stay on May 21 and vacated that stay order on June 21, 2012.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EXTREME FIRE PROTECTION INC VS JIM BELL ET AL

There are several cross-complaints filed by Armstrong Associates, the architect, the civil engineer and subcontractors as well as a complaint in intervention. On April 9, 2012, the Bells amended the TACC to name Earl V. Armstrong, III, (“Armstrong”), individually, as a cross-defendant. Armstrong states that, apart from this litigation, the Bells are pressing a claim for criminal fraud against Armstrong Associates and Armstrong.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANGEL MORA ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

On November 10, 2011, State Compensation Insurance Fund (“SCIF”) filed its complaint in intervention asserting subrogation claims for amounts expended on behalf of decedent’s employer. Carleton answered the complaint on December 7, 2011. On March 15, 2012, SCIF dismissed its complaint in intervention with prejudice. On March 16, Edison filed its original motion for determination for good faith settlement. The motion was opposed by R.E. Hall and Carleton.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2012

BRIAN CARIDEO VS. STANLEY KELLEY ET AL

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Matter on calendar for Monday, July 30, 2012, Line 18, DEFENDANTS STANLEY KELLEY, ANTHONY KELLEY'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted as unopposed. Sustained without leave. Kelley Kennedy (KK) has filed a complaint in intervention, alleging elder abuse against the decedent. Defendants S. Kelley and A. Kelley note that the complaint does not comply with requirements of CCP ? 377.32. See generally, Lickter v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2012

AMANDA SCOTT VS. MIKE MARTIN STIMMEL ET AL

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File Complaint-In-Intervention Matter on calendar for Friday, July 27, 2012, Line 18, INTERVENOR SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File Complaint-In-Intervention. Granted. No opposition filed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2012

LESLIE MORRIS ET AL VS. ALTA BUILDING MATERIAL COMPANY ET AL

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 24, 2012 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 3. Plaintiff?s demurrer to Intervenors? complaint in intervention: Plaintiff?s general demurrer based on timeliness is overruled. Plaintiff?s demurrer to affirmative defenses 7-8, 11-14, 17-19, 22-23, 25-27, 29-35, 38, 40-41 for failing to specifically refer to any causes of action is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2012

BRIAN CARIDEO VS. STANLEY KELLEY ET AL

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Matter on calendar for Friday, June 20, 2012, Line 16, DEFENDANTS STANLEY KELLEY, ANTHONY KELLEY'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. Continued to July 30, 2012 to provide the moving party with an opportunity to comply with Local Rule 2.6B. The moving party must provide courtesy copies of the moving and any reply papers to department 302 no later than 4pm July 23, 2012 with a cover letter stating the new hearing date. =(302/HEK)

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2012

COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION*

motion for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention pursuant to C.C.P. 387 is denied without prejudice to re-filing in individual cases. The Court cannot accept one motion in intervention for a group of cases in the asbestos department. Motions to intervene may be filed in individual cases on an ex parte basis. All rules governing the filing of ex parte motions must be followed including notice to opposing counsel. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 10:00am in Department 602, Hon. Suzanne R.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2012

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

COMPLEX ASBESTOS LITIGATION*

motion for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention pursuant to C.C.P. 387 is granted. No opposition filed. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30am in Department 602, Hon. Suzanne R. Bolanos presiding. A court reporter will not be provided by the court. If any party wishes to have the matter reported, the parties must meet and confer to agree on only one court reporter for any reported matter in this case. There will be only one official record in a case.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2012

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

ANGEL MORA ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

State Compensation Insurance Fund has filed a complaint in intervention and a lien. Motion: SCE has reached a settlement with plaintiffs conditioned upon a determination of good faith settlement. SCE has agreed to pay $25,000. SCE maintains that the transmission line was constructed in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 and, therefore, it did not breach any duty to decedent, citing Krongos v.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2012

MORRIS FAULKENBERRY VS. DOWMAN PRODUCTS INC. ET AL

Motion For Leave To File A Complaint-In-Intervention Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure 387 On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, April 10, 2012 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 3. Proposed Intervenors? motion for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention pursuant to C.C.P. 387 is granted. No opposition filed. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45am. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2012

EXTREME FIRE PROTECTION INC VS JIM BELL ET AL

There are several cross-complaints filed by Armstrong, the architect, the civil engineer and subcontractors as well as a complaint in intervention. On January 17, 2012, the court ordered a global discovery stay in this case pending further review at a hearing on April 5, 2012. The reason for the stay is that Bell has pursued criminal prosecution of Armstrong through the Santa Barbara County Sheriff. On March 15, 2012, the court denied Bell’s motion to vacate the stay. There is a CMC set for April 5, 2012.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

EXTREME FIRE PROTECTION INC VS JIM BELL ET AL

There are several cross-complaints filed by Armstrong, the architect, the civil engineer and subcontractors as well as a complaint in intervention. On January 17, 2012, the court ordered a global discovery stay in this case pending further review at a hearing on April 5, 2012. The reason for the stay is that Bell has pursued criminal prosecution of Armstrong through the Santa Barbara County Sheriff. There is a CMC set for April 5, 2012. The trial date has been vacated.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DONALD TAYON ET AL VS. AMCORD, INC ET AL

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, West American Insurance Motion For Leave To File A Complaint-In-Intervention Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure 387 On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, March 13, 2012 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 4. Intervenors Hartford Fire Insurance Co., et al.?s motion for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention pursuant to C.C.P. 387 is granted. No opposition filed. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45am.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2012

LUPE SAVALA PALOMARES VS. NOR-CAL SCAFFOLDING, INC. ET AL

Mtn For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention; Memo Of P & A; Dec And Pos Set for hearing on Friday, March 9, 2012, Line 9, INTERVENOR ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY'S Motion For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention. Granted. No opposition filed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2012

LUIS ADOLFO MARQUEZ ET AL VS. PG & E ET AL

Mtn For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention; Memo Of P & Dec. And Pos Set for hearing on Friday, March 9, 2012, Line 11, INTERVENOR ZURICH NORTH AMERICA'S Motion For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention. Granted. No opposition filed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2012

MOHAN KANCHI VS. SARA ELIZABETH STRETON

A party served with a complaint in intervention may within 30 days after service move, demur, or otherwise plead to the complaint in the same manner as to an original complaint." The demurrer is overruled. Assuming Amgen's standing to assert tort claims is based on contractual partial subrogation rights, and assuming, therefore, Amgen is required to properly allege the contract, Amgen has done so. What other terms that may exist in the plan but are not plead are not properly the subject of a demur.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2012

JAMIE KROLL VS SANTA BARBARA CITY COLLEGE ET AL

in intervention.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2012

  « first    1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.