What is enforcement of settlement agreement?

Useful Rulings on Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

Recent Rulings on Enforcement of Settlement Agreement

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court recognizes that in the future some Plaintiffs might be able to show imminent threat of irreparable harm, depending on the City’s conduct with respect to their STR permit renewals, Code enforcement, and other changed circumstances. For this reason, the application for preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

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

Stay of Enforcement of Court’s Judgment The Court is inclined to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal. The Court is persuaded that the status quo should be maintained pending appeal so that any different relief granted by the Court of Appeal is not rendered illusory, and to avoid interfering with those parts of the Permit which may have been successfully implemented by some cities affected by the Permit.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

(¶VIII.B) This Settlement Agreement does not affect the rights of Class Members who timely and properly request exclusion from the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement does not release claims for personal injury, property damage other than to the Class Vehicles, or claims for subrogation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

RE: TRAILING: ELIZ ROSNER'S CREDITORS CLAIM SET BY DEPT.30

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Approval of Settlement Agreement and in Response to Linda Rosner’s Frivolous Objection filed 8- 21-2020 by Nicolas Rosner and C. Jeff Brinton requests affirmative relief and must be calendared and noticed for relief to be considered. 4. Reply to Response to Objection of Linda Fuentes Rosner filed 9-18-2020 by Linda Fuentes Rosner.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT RE PET’N DET VALIDITY SET BY DEPT.30 (FILED

09/04/18 BY C.J.BRINTON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of settlement PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status of settlement

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MYRNA KAWAKITA VS GEORGE TASHJIAN MD ET AL

On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unconditional Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. On March 5, 2019, Norms filed a “Notice of Acceptance of Cross-Defendant George Tashjian, M.D.’s Statutory Offer to Compromise.” On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed the entire action of all parties and all causes of action, with prejudice; that day, Norms dismissed its cross-complaint, with prejudice. Case No.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RE: FIRST ACCOUNT OF TRUSTEE AND PET’N FOR ITS SETTLEMENT

FILED ON 08/13/19 BY KIMBERLY CZIRKELBACH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Note: Residuary Beneficiaries’ Response and Objections filed by American Cancer Society, Inc., Feed the Children, Inc., Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and ALSAC/St. Judge Children’s Research Hospi...

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JUAN PALMA ET AL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

On December 5, 2018, a Notice of Settlement was filed as between Plaintiffs and KFH, SCPMG, KFHPI and Shah. On January 16, 2019, the “Order Re: Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement” as between Plaintiffs and KFH, SCPMG, KFHPI and Shah was filed. On June 27, 2019, a second Notice of Settlement was filed as between Plaintiffs and Aviation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

BENJAMIN F. POCO, ET AL. VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

June 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Bank, All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in this Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s [sic] Title or Any Cloud on Plaintiff’s [sic] Title Thereto (“All Persons”) and Does 1-10 for: Quite [sic] Title Cancellation of Instruments Violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (“HBOR”) Breach of Contract Violation of Court Approved Settlement

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

GONZALO LOPEZ, JR. VS WEST COVINA CDJR CAR STOP LLC, ET AL.

On September 1, 2020, a Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) was held; at that time, the hearing was continued, on the court’s own motion, to October 1, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. The September 1, 2020 minute order states, in relevant part: “Counsel for plaintiff’s motion to be relieved as counsel to be heard on above date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KAREN POWELL V. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.

Nature of Proceedings: Fairness Hearing; Motion Approval Final Approval for Class Action Settlement Tentative

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

LEER V. GHITTERMAN, GHITTERMAN, & FELD

., Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 852, 861-862 [a party may defend a suit by objecting to the enforcement of the contract because it was induced by fraud or undue influence, and if successful, has two remedies – rescission or enforcement with damages].) This means, of course, that a party must plead the appropriate predicate (or ground) before identifying rescission as an appropriate remedy. (See, e.g., McDougall v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

MATTER OF THE JOSEPH LEE REVOCABLE TRUST

RE: PET'N FOR SETTLEMENT ON FIRST ACCOUNT FILED ON 08/11/17 BY ELIZABETH SOLOWAY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 1 -- Need appearances to report status DOUGLAS C LEE JOHN A HARTOG ELIZABETH SOLOWAY MICHAEL J.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF CZESLAW KENTZER

Stipulation and Order Approving Settlement filed 8-21-2020. DIANE J CRAWFORD KENDAL E FLETCHER MARILYN L DRAPEL KENDAL E FLETCHER SANDRA DRAPEL KONSTANTINE DEMIRIS THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances. This is a competing petition. 2. Proof of Subscribing Witness Form DE-131 with copy of will attached. PrC § 8220. 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

TANIA PULLIAM VS HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC ET AL

Thus, there is no vagueness to these billing entries and the costs appear to be reasonable and necessary to pursue post-judgment enforcement. TDAF further objects specifically to the $1,880 that TDAF paid to Plaintiff to settle the discovery dispute between the parties. TDAF argues that it would be double recovery to allow Plaintiff to recover these costs.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendant argues that since the entire amount of the remaining outstanding judgment has been bonded, any judgment enforcement actions should be stayed. A judgment for damages and attorney fees must be bonded, because attorney fees, unlike costs, are not routinely a part of most judgments. (Banks v. Manos (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 123, 127.) The entire judgment must be bonded to stay execution on appeal. (Id. at p. 129.) Defendant’s argument is meritless.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

JANE DOE VS LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN KANANI, ET AL.

Section 917.1 governs whether an undertaking must be given to stay enforcement of a judgment or order in the trial court. This action is not an action for enforcement of any judgment. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that CCP §916(a) applies to this legal malpractice action, which is an entirely separate proceeding from the two civil restraining order actions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARAKSI ABADZHYAN , ET AL. VS CHEYRL LYNN THOMAS

The Court will not approve distribution of the settlement in this manner in connection with an expedited petition. If Petitioner wishes to receive the proceeds of the settlement, without bond, Petitioner must file a petition to approve the compromise with a noticed hearing date, and must be prepared to testify in court concerning the plans for the proceeds of the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

NADIA KINDA, ET AL. V. PANTOJA TRUCKING, INC., ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Good Faith Settlement Tentative

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

GUARDIANSHIP OF KAYLEE NICOLE ALVAREZ

Accordingly, parties must come prepared to discuss the settlement reached in case no 19FL02211, and the order made in that case to attend mediation.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Additionally, the settlement must include the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement, and against whom enforcement is sought. (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.) Discussion Plaintiff has not demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements set forth above. (Motion, Schwarz Decl., Exh. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALEXA MARQUEZ , ET AL. VS WILLIAM W HOVERDER

Additionally, the Court notes that Petitioner failed to check Box 12(b)(4), which must be checked when Petitioner is receiving money under the settlement. Petitioner is clearly receiving money under the settlement. When Petitioner files an amended petition, the Court asks that Petitioner use the online “outlines” feature in the e-filing system to facilitate ease of review of the attached exhibits.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARCELA CARRILLO VS RYAN SHANNON ET AL

“For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ...” (citation).” These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and contrary to popular belief fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MORALES VS. TORRES GENERAL

Motion for Summary Judgment OFF CALENDER- NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT FILED 7/22/20

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

STARR VS STARR

The potential options are (1) a voluntary settlement conference, (2) an informal discovery conference [Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.080] or (3) appointment of a discovery referee [Code of Civil Procedure section 639 & California Rules of Court, Rule 3.920]. The party shall be prepared to discuss whether any of these procedures would be appropriate.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 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.