Complaint in Intervention?

Useful Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

Recent Rulings on Complaint in Intervention

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 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. (Opp. Strong Decl. ¿ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD EUGENE SANFORD VS TIFFANY GOMEZ

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 The Court finds that Moving Non-Party has satisfied the filing requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (c) by filing a noticed motion and declaration setting forth the grounds for intervention as well as a copy of its proposed complaint in intervention. (McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

SAMVEL HARUTYUNYAN, ET AL. VS REGINA QUIROZ, 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 The Court finds that Moving Non-Party has satisfied the filing requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (c) by filing a noticed motion and declaration setting forth the grounds for intervention as well as a copy of its proposed complaint in intervention. (McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

CERVANTES V. CORDOVA

Finally, Everest should proceed diligently with service of the summons and Complaint in Intervention. Everest shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

LON DAUGHERTY VS DOE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 100

Intervenor shall file its complaint in intervention within ten (10) days. Intervenor shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: August 6, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

RAMIREZ-CICONTE VS. LBA-PPF INDUSTRIAL 5115 E. LA PALMA LLC

Nellson to file the complaint-in-intervention within 30 days of this ruling and shall serve the complaint-in-intervention in compliance with CCP § 387. Nellson to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

PABLO CABRAL VS GRAND PACIFIC 7-28 LLC

On November 9, 2018, Plaintiff-in-Intervention Granite State Insurance Company filed a complaint-in-intervention against Defendant/Cross-Defendant Grand Pacific 7-28, LLC seeking recovery of paid workers’ compensation benefits. On April 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed amendments to the complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Naya Services Inc. and Doe 2 as Defendant Fernando Estrada.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

ARELY DEL CARMEN OCHOA VS ESTER AGUILAR, 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.” (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

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

STOP TOXIC HOUSING IN PASADENA, INC. VS DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ET AL.

Property owners living in an area affected by the amendment filed a complaint in intervention challenging the validity of the tolling agreements. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint in intervention without leave to amend. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. (Salmon Protection, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at 199-200.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHRIS NGUYEN VS SUPERIOR INTERMODAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

On June 4, 2020, Security National Insurance Company, administered by AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Trial is set for February 9, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Security National Insurance Company, administered by AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

RICHMOND POLICE VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

What is left is a complaint in intervention filed by petitioners, seeking to enforce compliance with their own PRA requests under SB 1421. (A parallel complaint in intervention was filed by a second set of intervenors, but they are not parties to the present proceedings.) After considerable negotiation and discussion, petitioners and the City have come to impasse on several particular points of dispute as to the City’s compliance with Petitioners’ requests.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

GARCIA V. DAILY, ET AL.

Subsequently, Old Republic withdrew both its complaint in intervention and its motion for apportionment, leaving no pleading before the court that sought affirmative relief. Taking the position that Old Republic had given up its right to reimbursement, the law firm disbursed the settlement funds to the injured client. Old Republic then filed suit against the law firm for breach of contract, fraud, negligence and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

DOE VS POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

VoSD's Complaint in Intervention attempts to expand the scope of this litigation to records pertaining to persons besides DOE, the Petitioner in this case. Unlike this reverse CPRA action where PUSD supported disclosure, VoSD is seeking to force PUSD to disclose records as to others persons involved in the records request.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MEILANIE ADILENE CONTRERAS-JARA,A MINOR,BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM,GLADYS JULIANA VS CARLOS E. CACERES,AN INDIVIDUAL

Property owners living in an area affected by the amendment filed a complaint in intervention challenging the validity of the tolling agreements. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint in intervention without leave to amend. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. (Salmon Protection, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at 199-200.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

DONNA MORGAN VS DAKOTA HARRIS EZELL

Intervenor shall file its proposed complaint in intervention within ten (10) days. Intervenor shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: July 29, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

AVIS COPELIN, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, ET AL. VS REHABBERS FINANCIAL INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On June 6, 2019, this Court granted Lloyd White’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention, which was filed that same day. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 19, 2019. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, prior to the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JULIE DICKENS VS MONTAGE INTERNATIONAL ET AL

Intervenor is ordered to file Its Complaint-In-Intervention forthwith. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KENNETH SIMONS, ET AL. VS ANDREW VASQUEZ, ET AL.

.: 19STCV29315 Hearing Date: July 28, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion for leave to file complaint in intervention Plaintiff Kenneth Simons (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision. Aetna Inc., insured by Ace American Insurance Company, administered through Gallagher Bassett (“Claimant”) seeks to assert a lien on any recovery by Plaintiff, per Labor Code section 3856. Claimant represents that it paid workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff as a result of the collision.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

JOSEPH SORIA VS MILLERCOORS, LLC, ET AL.

Berkshire seeks to intervene in the instant case by filing the subject Complaint-in-Intervention for recovery of workers’ compensation benefits. (Id., ¶4.) The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

SMART PAWN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On June 6, 2019, this Court granted Lloyd White’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention, which was filed that same day. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 19, 2019. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, prior to the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On June 6, 2019, this Court granted Lloyd White’s Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention, which was filed that same day. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 19, 2019. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplemental Motion for Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, prior to the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

RICHARD WALLACE VS WJE TRUCKING INC ET AL

While the Court would generally order Proposed Intervenor to file the complaint-in intervention within ten days, the Court notes Proposed Intervenor has already filed the complaint-in-intervention. Therefore, the Court deems the complaint-in-intervention filed on February 11, 2020 as the operative complaint-in-intervention in this action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SILVER SADDLE COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT LP

. _____ The Motion (ROA # 141, 151) of Prospective Intervenors Antonio Garcia and Carlos Novelo to intervene and to file their proposed complaint in intervention in this action, is DENIED. A necessary prerequisite of a Motion seeking to intervene is the filing of a Complaint in intervention, which is then served on the parties. Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 495. The failure to comply with this requirement supports the denial of this Motion. Id.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SILVER SADDLE COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT LP

. _____ The Motion (ROA # 141, 151) of Prospective Intervenors Antonio Garcia and Carlos Novelo to intervene and to file their proposed complaint in intervention in this action, is DENIED. A necessary prerequisite of a Motion seeking to intervene is the filing of a Complaint in intervention, which is then served on the parties. Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 495. The failure to comply with this requirement supports the denial of this Motion. Id.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 62     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.