What is an ex parte application?

Useful Rulings on Ex Parte Application

Recent Rulings on Ex Parte Application

FARNAZ VOJDANI ET AL VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL

Defense Counsel is encouraged to use the ex parte application process to obtain hearing dates when necessary, and to work with Plaintiffs’ attorney to ensure discovery is completed expediently. The Court admonishes the parties that it will be likely to impose sanctions if either party does not fully comply with discovery obligations in light of the preference status. Defendants’ motion to sever trials is denied.

  • Hearing

CHRISTINE CHO VS NATALIE SHOOSHANT, ET AL.

On 11/5/20, Shooshani filed an ex parte application to continue trial and related dates. Cho and Yu each filed oppositions and Shooshani filed a reply. The court granted the ex parte application in part and set Shooshani’s motion for hearing on 11/30/20. Trial in this matter is currently set for 2/16/21. No further documents have been filed following the ex parte hearing, and thus, the court will treat the papers filed with the ex parte application as the moving papers. 2. Motion to Continue Trial a.

  • Hearing

SANDY PARK VS ARMSTRONG GARDEN CENTERS, INC

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

  • Hearing

CATHERINE M PACAS VS MANINDER KAUR

On November 6, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s ex parte application for an order shortening time for the hearing on Defendant’s motion to continue trial and pre-trial discovery cut-off days for 120 days or more. On its own motion, the Court also continued the non-jury trial scheduled for 12/03/2020 to 12/21/2020. ANALYSIS: I. Motion to Continue Trial A.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

UNI-GLORY DEVELOPMENT, INC. VS. FAIRVIEW EAST LLC

On March 06, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the motion for summary judgment hearing date, and the Court continued the instant matter to August 28, 2020. On August 28, 2020, the Court continued the instant matter to November 25, 2020 and ordered a separate Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint to be filed. Counsel for Defendant was ordered to give notice and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

  • Hearing

DISCOVER BANK VS CYNTHIA TANOUYE

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL: GRANTED The Court Trial is advanced and continued to FEBRUARY 25, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., in Department A. Moving party shall give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Andrew C. Kim or Ann H. Park

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

UNIFUND CCR, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. VS ANSELMO MATA

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL: GRANTED The Court Trial is advanced and continued to FEBRUARY 23, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., in Department A. Moving party shall give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Andrew C. Kim or Ann H. Park

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DISCOVER BANK VS YURIANA MARTINEZ

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL: GRANTED The Court Trial is advanced and continued to May 5, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., in Department A. Moving party shall give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Andrew C. Kim or Ann H. Park

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DISCOVER BANK VS HENRIETTA N ANUGWOM

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL: GRANTED The Court Trial is advanced and continued to APRIL 29, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., in Department A. Moving party shall give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Andrew C. Kim or Ann H. Park

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

David Sedaghat’s ex parte application to file substitution of attorney for S. David Sedaghat. On July 15, 2020, the Court granted Stewart J. Levin’s motion to be relieved as counsel for S. David Segahat. (07/15/2020 Minute Order; 06/19/2020 Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, ¶ 1.) On August 25, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat’s motion for leave to intervene or alternatively file supplemental pleading and motion for sanctions.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS MAHA AYASH

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL: GRANTED The Court Trial is advanced and continued to May 4, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., in Department A. Moving party shall give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Andrew C. Kim or Ann H. Park

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MATTER OF THE RICHARD W HOUGHTON FAMILY TRUST

Ex Parte Application to Remove Successor Trustee filed 7-5-2018 was dropped from calendar, pursuant to 8-16-2018 minute order. Notice of Hearing was filed 10-8-2020; however, clerk failed to address calendaring. As a courtesy to the petitioner, court has added this matter to the calendar.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DUNN VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

On April 4, 2019, the Court entertained plaintiff's ex parte application to continue trial. The parties were directed to meet and confer. On April 5, 2019, the parties agreed to continue trial to October 25, 2019. The new discovery cut-off was September 25, 2019. On June 19, 2019, plaintiff deposed William D. Hoffman, the Investigator for the University's Office of Ethics & Compliance.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

VIRAMSHABUH DUHANCIOGLU VS RALPHS, ET AL.

The Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application seeking relief on this ground on October 7, 2019 based on Plaintiff’s failure to properly file the ex parte application. (See Stone Decl., ¶ 8.) However, this is extrinsic evidence that the Court cannot take judicial notice of. Thus, the demurrer is properly granted. CONCLUSION The demurrer is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within twenty days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

DWIGHT CARLSON VS DYLAN KIRSCH

On February 20, 2020, the Court denied an ex parte application for a neurological examination because such a request needs to be requested in a regularly scheduled motion, as it is here. And on March 11, 2020, the Court ruled on an ex parte application to continue trial and related dates. As such, the motion at bar is timely and not a motion for reconsideration. The court notes that while the requests certainly could have been made sooner, there is no prejudice to the plaintiff in their delay.

  • Hearing

GREGORY LUCAS VS CITY OF POMONA

Course of Proceedings On April 24, 2020, the court denied Lucas’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction, noting that Lucas provide no evidence of exigency or irreparable harm. The court noted that Lucas waited four months to seek injunctive relief. B. CEQA 1. EIR The purpose of CEQA (§21000 et seq.) is to maintain a quality environment for the people of California both now and in the future. §21000(a).

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Course of Proceedings On April 24, 2020, the court denied Lucas’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction, noting that Lucas provide no evidence of exigency or irreparable harm. The court noted that Lucas waited four months to seek injunctive relief. B. CEQA 1. EIR The purpose of CEQA (§21000 et seq.) is to maintain a quality environment for the people of California both now and in the future. §21000(a).

  • Hearing

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. JOSE LUIS TORRES, ET AL

PRESENTATION: Leticia filed an ex parte application on September 21, 2020 and Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 22, 2020. No reply has been received by the Court. On September 22, 2020, Torres filed a notice of joinder as to the ex parte application. On September 23, 2020, the Court continued the instant matter to October 16, 2020 and waived notice. On October 16, 2020, the Court continued the instant matter to November 06, 2020 and waived notice.

  • Hearing

LION EYE FARMS INC ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

OAH2020060759 (Exhibit 20), (21) Ex Parte Application for Order Confirming Trial Date and/or Imposing Conditions on any Extension Thereof filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 20CV00060 (Exhibit 21), (22) Motion to Compel Defendants to Comply with Plaintiff’s Demand for Permission to Enter onto Property for Inspection, Surveying, Measuring, and Photography filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 20CV00060 (Exhibit 22), (23) Declaration of Wiley G.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

PEGGYE MARTIN ET AL VS IBIERE SECK ET AL

Additionally, the court notes that the title of the motion has “Motion for Sanctions” handwritten in above a previous typed title “Ex Parte Application for Final Judgment and Sanctions October 21, 2020.” Further, the remainder of Plaintiff’s motion is a collection of unrelated documents, including copies of Plaintiff’s discovery demands and other documents, such as a notice from County of Los Angeles, Department of Children and Family Services. (Motion, 41-42.)

  • Hearing

GROSS V. WESTPARK CORTE BELLA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Indeed, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking to continue the hearing on the motion to set aside the default so that he could depose Patrol One's counsel. (7/7/2020 Ex Parte App. [ROA 318].) At the ex parte hearing, Plaintiff also did not assert that there was a stay or that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Patrol One. Before the hearing on the motion to set aside the default, Plaintiff submitted on the Court's tentative ruling to grant the motion.

  • Hearing

PIETRO V NPI FUND ET AL.

Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Order Compelling Defendant Franklin Loffer t Attend Deposition and Produce Documents, issued on October 2, 2020 in Santa Cru County Superior Court Case No. 19CV01873: Granted. 3. Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Second Order Compelling Defendant Frankli Loffer to Attend Deposition and Produce Documents, issued on October 14, 2020 i Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 19CV01873: Granted 4.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or by ex parte application. 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).)

  • Hearing

RAMON MCNEAL VS RAYMOND L. JENKINS, AN INDIVIDUAL

On November 10, 2020, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application for a Continuance of the Early Evaluation Conference. Defendant withdrew the ex parte application on November 13, 2020. Standard California law provides for mandatory alternative dispute resolution for civil “construction-related accessibility claims.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE TERRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION VS SAMBIZ AMINI

The ex parte application also requested a TRO and OSC with respect to other alleged conduct of Defendant’s son. The court did not grant the TRO/OSC with respect to such conduct. The OSC is limited to the specific relief described in the TRO/OSC signed by the court on September 16, 2020, and served on Defendant. The court set a briefing schedule and ordered Plaintiff to serve the TRO/OSC by personal service by September 18, 2020.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 315     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.