Confession of Judgment

Useful Rulings on Confession of Judgment

Recent Rulings on Confession of Judgment

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Because there is no showing of imminent irreparable harm, the Court need not decide and does not express any opinion on whether there is a likelihood of success with respect to the merits of any of Plaintiffs’ claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

On March 1, 2019 the Court issued its ruling regarding the interpretation of Section 13.2(f) of the parties’ lease agreement.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

s Motion for Summary Adjudication 4)Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Turner Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Against Plaintiffs 1. Motion by Saddleback Corp. dba Saddleback Waterproof for Summary Judgment or Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Defendant Saddleback’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of Issues 5 and 6 (statute of limitations) is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Where the judgment commands that the order or decision be set aside, it may order the reconsideration of the case in light of the court’s opinion and judgment and may order respondent to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the judgment shall not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent. (Emphasis added.) Draft Proposed Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

with the date of the judgment and the title of the court and the case”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

Plaintiff does not address the disposition of any security deposit. ANALYSIS Yes (2/26/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Plaintiff does not provide the court with any documentary evidence in support of his claims. Plaintiff’s request for $300,000.00 in lost profit damages is unsupported. ANALYSIS Yes (11/9/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Summary Judgment will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Upon review of the FACC, the Court could not find any language referencing the administrative fees, and even if those fees were requested as part of the actual damages, “in excess of” a specified dollar amount “and according to proof” limits the amount of the award in a default judgment to that dollar amount.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff is requested to provide clarification regarding the date of breach and to furnish payment history on the note. ANALYSIS Yes (7/9/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

No further hearings are in Dept. 28, Spring StreetAFTER REVIEW OF THE COURT FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE CURTIS A. KIN presiding in DEPT.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS TOTAL BODY EXPERTS LLC, ET AL.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) money lent; and (3) account stated. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) and seeks summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Total Body Experts LLC and Marc Erickson.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

Dated this 11th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF AMENDED FIRST ACCT & RPT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE,

Note: Order Approving Waiver of First Account filed 6-16-2020 authorized 2nd account to be filed by 3-1-2021. JOHN PAUL TURNER LAURA A. ZAMORA TIMOTHY JOHN REID RAILTON FILED ON 08/11/20 BY DEBORAH PHILIPS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of personal service of Citation on personal representative. PrC § 8500(b) 3. Proof of mailing to Franchise Tax Board who requested special notice. PrC § 1202 4. Proposed Order Notes: 1.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE LLOYD W HARRICH TRUST

RE: RPT OF SUC T'TEE PET’N FOR INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 02/19/19 BY GABRIELA B ODELL PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation Note: Response filed by Monica Harrich-Griswold and Jessica Harrich 9-30-19.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

FILED ON 10/16/19 BY MONICA L HARRICH-GRISWOLD, JESSICA J HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, ...

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL ACCT & RPT OF ADMNTR & PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT & FNL DIST

FILED ON 08/19/20 BY JAMES A WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Declaration addressing creditor claim filed by Far Hills MHP on 8-2-19 for $5,000.00. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403. 2. Proposed Order JAMES A WALTERS DANIEL T. QUANE, ESQ. RALPH EDWIN WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NO...

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

Proof of mailing a copy of the Petition for Probate to all persons entitled to receive notice. LR 7.151(e) 3. Corrected proof of mailing to verify Proof of Service attached to Notice filed 9-1-2020. 4. Proof of mailing to Terese Merrell, issue of Mark Merrell, trustee of trust and trust beneficiaries or waivers of notice. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) ALFRED LEWIS MERRELL MARK ALFRED MERRELL KEVIN M CORBETT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHAFIQ SIDIQI VS GAYANE BALABANYAN

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

GRDSHP OF SCOTT

Do one or the other, but not both: (1) Have a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition Form GC-210 personally served on Dontray and file Proof of Service or (2) have Dontray sign a consent and waiver form (GC-211) 4.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES LLC VS MICHAEL D. GARRIS

The Court orders that Petitioner submit a proposed judgment within ten (10) days of the date of issuance of this Order. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.