Complaint in Intervention?

Useful Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

Recent Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

1526-1550 of 1609 results

JOHNNY ROBLES VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

(Complaint-In-Intervention)- Dismiss without prejudice per represented settlement. No appearance necessary if there is no opposition.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2011

  • Judge

    Jeanne Flaherty

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

AIRGAS-NOTHERN CALIFORNIA & NEVADA. INC. VS. KAMPS PROPANE

The court notes that defendant is entitled to test a complaint in intervention by way of demurrer. The court has developed a special Friday demurrer calendar and has set aside space for additional demurrers on Wednesdays. Accordingly, the backlog for setting demurrers has significantly lessened.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAUL EDWARDS VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

No appearance is required under the following conditions: A complaint in intervention has now been filed and it appears that the existing complaint can be dealt with through the law and motion process. The Court designates this action a Class III case. This case is referred to Master Calendar for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DANIEL E. CHAMORRO VS. NI NI KIANG ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention For Reimbursement Of Works Comp Benefits; Set for hearing on Friday, December 17, 2010, line 13. INTERVENOR SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.'S Motion For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention For Reimbursement Of Works Comp Benefits. GRANTED, NO OPPOSITION FILED. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2010

RABOBANK N.A. VS. HAVEN AT TAPO STREET LLC

(iii) Order Defendant to file and serve an Answer to the Complaint-In-Intervention by no later than January 5, 2011.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2010

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

REGENTS OF THE UCSB V UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA ET AL

The order grants leave for Avila to file her original complaint in intervention; this complaint has not been filed. The Court’s secretary has received a telephone call from counsel for the potential intervenor that the matter has settled, but so far I have not seen any dismissal. Ruling: The Court will set December 21, 2010, as a deadline for the document to be filed or will vacate the order granting the request. The matter is therefore continued to December 21 at 9:30 am.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2010

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. LENNAR WINNCREST, LLC

No appearance is required under the following conditions: The remaining Complaint in Intervention is dismissed. The Court orders the entire action dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal is ordered pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1385. Absent a request to appear and be heard for any matter on the Case Management Calendar, all tentative rulings shall become the final ruling of the court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JIMMY LAM VS. FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention Set for hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 2010, line 5, INTERVENOR STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY'S Motion For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention. GRANTED, NO OPPOSITION FILED. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2010

AHMED ET AL., V. TRIMARK

The Court will direct the clerk to file American Safety Indemnity Company and American Safety Risk Retention Group's proposed complaint-in-intervention attached as Exhibit B to their motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2010

CRISTOBAL IBANEZ ET AL VS. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL

For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention Set for hearing on Friday, October 1, 2010, line 8, INTERVENOR TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT Motion For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention. GRANTED, NO OPPOSITION FILED. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2010

RABOBANK N.A. VS. HAVEN AT TAPO STREET LLC

(ii) Order Third Party MJD Concrete Works, Inc. to file and serve forthwith its proposed Complaint-In-Intervention.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2010

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIREMAN'S FUND VS AKM FIRE INC

The Court will direct the clerk to file Lexington's proposed complaint-in-intervention attached to their papers.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2010

AMY CASTILLO VS. MELISSA THOMAS

The proposed complaint-in-intervention, attached as ex. "3" to the 8/4/03 application, is deemed filed and served. (Mr. Carroll, please honor CRC 3.1110(f) in the future.) 30 days to respond. Separately, Ds move to strike those portions of the complaint Ps have amended which exceed the amendment authorizations pursuant my order on 6/8/10. Ps claim entitlement as a matter of right, but that is incorrect where, as here, Ds have already demurred and the demurrer hearing has come and gone.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

CHARLES H ROBERTS III. ETAL VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

in intervention.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMY CASTILLO VS. MELISSA THOMAS

I am a little confused about the Chapter 7 trustee's request to file a complaint-in-intervention. What assets/ liabilities is the trustee seeking/ protecting? How is the trustee's action distinguishable from Ps' ? What is the trustee hoping to accomplish ? Assuming there is a legitimate purpose, why can't the trustee initiate an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court where she belongs ? gmr

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2010

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

SUSAN KLEINMAN VS. JACLYN MOORE

The filing of a complaint in intervention, standing alone, is not sufficient to constitute such "active participation". Accordingly, the applicable statute is Labor Code §360(c). The only remaining issue, and one which the parties appear to assiduously avoid, is the basis for and reasonableness of the $44,000 fee claimed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2010

LINTHICUM VS BUTTERFIELD

On June 14, Bjorklund filed a “Notice of Motion to Strike, Dismiss, & for a Bill of Particulars on the Complaint in Intervention and Response to GAINSCO’s Opposition” with a hearing date of July 13, 2010. This Notice of Motion to Strike is identical to the document filed April 7, 2010, with the exception of the hearing date on the first page.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2010

ROBERT TERESINSKI. ET AL VS. KRISTOPHER DEVINO. ET AL

This matter is continued to allow a Request for Dismissal as to the Complaint in Intervention to be filed. Absent a request to appear and be heard for any matter on the Case Management Calendar, all tentative rulings shall become the final ruling of the court. The tentative ruling, or such other ruling as the court may render, will not become the final ruling of the court until the hearing. Unless otherwise ordered, the plaintiff shall give actual written notice of all final rulings of the court.

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MICHAEL LINTHICUM ET AL VS LOCKE BUTTERFIELD, ET AL

On 3/18/10, this Court granted General Agents Insurance Company of America’s (“GAINSCO”) [represented by Berman] ex-parte application for leave to file a complaint in intervention for reimbursement of the funds held on deposit. It filed the complaint in intervention on March 24, 2010. On 4/1/10 GAINSCO (via Berman) filed its opposition to the Bjorklund motion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2010

ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY VS. RECORD FIREARMS

Though Sutton was dismissed as to the comp carrier, it was still a cross-defendant at the time the complaint-in-intervention was filed. And, by analogy, no one is trying to vacate the dismissal between Sutton and the comp carrier. The reality is that Sutton and the rest us were caught off guard when the plaintiff-in-intervention decided to pursue her claims after waiting nearly four years; and, to my surprise at least, the Labor Code permits plaintiff-in-intervention to do exactly what she has done.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LA SALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR VS. TROPHY PROPERTIES B10 DE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED ET AL

Notice Of Motion For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention Set for hearing on Tuesday, January 12, 2010, line 10, INTERVENOR KELLY HAGGERTY Motion For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention. Motion denied. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2010

ELAN DORRIZ VS. PACIFIC EXCHANGE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC.

Order to show cause re proof of service on complaint in intervention is on calendar. Default on 2nd amended complaint is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2010

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Jeanne Flaherty

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY VS. RECORD FIREARMS

Martinez' intervention is not going to impact the trial date, the only issue is getting everyone to answer the complaint in intervention before the date set for trial. Is this within the realm of possibility, or is this a subterfuge for further delay ? gmr

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2010

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ALEX TIZENBERG VS. TOPAZ WAY TOWNHOMES UNIT II OWNER'S ASSOCIATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Granting Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention Set for hearing on Wednesday, December 30, 2009, line 10, INTERVENOR GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY Motion For Order Granting Leave to File a Complaint in Intervention. Granted. No opposition filed. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Dec 30, 2009

STEVE DUKES VS. CITIAPARTMENTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention Set for hearing on Wednesday, December 23, 2009, line 9, INTERVENOR STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Motion For Leave To File a Complaint in Intervention. Granted. No opposition filed. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2009

  « first    1 ... 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 load this page.