What is an ex parte application?

Useful Rulings on Ex Parte Application

Recent Rulings on Ex Parte Application

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

On May 9, 2019, the court granted, inter alia, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for amendment to complaint. On August 7, 2019, Ye’s default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for August 14, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

EDUARD GASPARYAN VS. DANIEL GREEN ET. AL.

At ex parte application hearing on 2/5/20, the court ordered the deposition of Mr. Gasparyan for 2/13/20. It is clear that the motion to compel the deposition (by ex parte application) was necessary for the deposition to take place. Accordingly, sanctions are warranted. The amount of sanctions requested is considered unreasonably high for the amount of work which this motion should have taken.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

ESTATE OF T.S. DRAYDEN

Counsel submitted an Ex Parte Application to Correct Clerical Error on 12/9/2019. No revised orders with corrected name of decedent have been submitted ALETHIA DRAYDEN GEORGE HOLLAND T S DRAYDEN FILED ON 08/20/19 BY CSC FIDUCIARIES, INC. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order Notes: 1. Objections filed by David Nace 10-29-19. 2. Response to Objection filed 12-12-19. BARBARA BAILEY CSC FIDUCIARIES, INC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ANGELIQUE SMITH VS HIROMI LEVY

Defendant filed an ex parte application seeking essentially the same relief on 4-23-20, six days after this motion was filed. The Hon. Lisa Hart Cole granted in part the application, identified the additional limited discovery to be completed by a new cut-off date in accordance with the 8-24-20 trial date. Any discovery shall be conducted in accordance with the 4-24-20 Order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in opposition to this motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANOUSHIRAVAN JAVAHERI VS KAMYAR COHANSHOHET

Plaintiff filed an ex parte application in connection with the 1/03/20. The ex parte application sought an order continuing trial and all related dates; the application indicated the case was not ready for trial and additional discovery was necessary. The application was unopposed. Notably, Defendant appeared at the FSC hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JENNIFER LECHTER VS JOSEPH LAM, ET AL.

Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order Enjoining the Non-Judicial Foreclosure and for an Order to Show Cause as to Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not be Granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CANDELARIA DE JESUS SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS GAGIK KHACHATRYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

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

    Jul 02, 2020

JOSHUA DUBINSKY VS JIM MULHEARN, ET AL.

On October 30, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and ordered Defendants to not copy, review, disseminate certain files of Plaintiff’s stored on the company’s server/computer system, pending a hearing on the preliminary injunction. (10/30/19 Minute Order.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In order to determine whether Plaintiff has repeatedly filed unmeritorious motions, pleading or other papers in this action, the relevant procedural history is as follows: 1. 1/30/15 – Complaint filed 2. 7/29/16 – Ex parte application to continue trial (granted) 3. 6/1/17 – Ex parte application for residential lockout injunction (denied) 4. 1/24/18 – First Amended Complaint filed 5. 1/29/18 – Ex parte application for additional time to serve Defendants (granted; trial continued to 6/29/18) 6. 3/29/18 –

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

LINDSAY BERKEBILE VS MARTHA HELEN CAMERON BARRETT

Barrett 7-1-2020 Tentative is to deny the plaintiff's ex parte application. As explained in Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co. (1995) 883 F. Supp. 488, 492-93, two things are necessary to support an ex parte application: "First, the evidence must show that the moving party's cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

CHRISTINE LAWSON, ET AL. VS DAVID JAMES MASSIE, ET AL.

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

    Jul 02, 2020

CITY OF DANA POINT V. NEW METHOD WELLNESS, INC.

The city initially filed an ex parte application for appointment of the receiver on October 25, 2019. That application was denied for want of jurisdiction—the remittitur had not issued yet and thus the court had no jurisdiction. There is no automatic preclusion for work performed prior to the appointment. A proposed receiver is often justified in prepping for an appointment and billing for that work. But here the October 2019 work was performed before the remittitur issued.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

WILLIAM CHARLES JONES JR VS THE REO GROUP INC ET AL

On October 17, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to approve lis pendens.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARVIND AGARWAL ET AL VS DAVID HERRERA ET AL

Plaintiff filed this complaint on 20 March 2019.9 On ex parte application of plaintiffs, this motion was advanced from 16 July 2020 to 2 July 2020. The Court undertook this resetting without the benefit of opposition papers filed by defendants DMJ Home Solutions, LLC and David Herrera. II. Analysis. Opposition to the ex parte application filed by defendants indicates that defense counsel underwent major medical procedures.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

PRINCESS NAVA CELO VS GERARDO MARCELO MARTINEZ

Plaintiff initially sought reclassification through an ex parte application in January, 2020. The application having been denied for lack of exigency, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion shortly thereafter. Regarding Plaintiff evidence that there is a possibility her damages will exceed, both parties agree that Plaintiff claims medical specials of $8,223.77 and lost wages of $4,052.00, for a total of $12,275.77. (Motion, pp. 3:19-4:2; Opp., p. 5:16-22.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

NEDE MGMT. INC., A WYOMING CORPORATION, ET AL. VS ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ET AL.

On February 19, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to continue the hearing date on the demurrer and motion to strike, and to allow Plaintiffs’ opposition to be considered. The Court granted this relief on the condition that Plaintiffs pay sanctions to Defendants for their costs associated with the continuance. On March 18, 2020, Defendants filed a reply and declaration to support their costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

On March 10, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order: 1) staying enforcement of Bilal Judgment; 2) quashing Bilal’s illegally-obtained ORAP re Siegel; and 3) shortening time for hearing on pending noticed motion for such relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CARLO LLC VS 4518 HOLLYWOOD LLC

Procedural Deficiencies The Court notes the issue, raised by Plaintiff in its opposition to Defendant’s ex parte application, that Defendant failed to meet and confer before filing this motion, as required by CCP section 439, subdivision (a)(2). However, CCP section 439, subdivision (B)(4) expressly states: (4) A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

PATRICIA SOARES ET AL VS WESTERN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

On June 5, 2020, Defendant filed an ex parte application for leave to file a first amended answer to the FAC. Pursuant to a minute order dated June 9, 2020, the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer to First Amended Complaint was scheduled for July 1, 2020. Moving papers were to be filed by June 12, 2020. Any opposition was to be filed by June 22, 2020. Any reply was to be filed by June 26, 2020. (Minute Order 6/9/20.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEAN BELL, ET AL VS, BARRY SCHERMAN, ET AL

Should the parties fail to reach resolution through the facilitator, either party may request (by ex parte application) that the court re—set the Motion for an expedited hearing Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 110(8) to contest the tentative decision.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

TAGHAVI V. MALLIET

Therefore, the court DENIES Defendant/Cross-Complainant Brian Malliet’s (Defendant) Motion for an Order Compelling Arbitration Under 8/30/13 Shareholder Agreement, filed as an ex parte application on 5-22-20 under ROA No. 200, without prejudice. Plaintiff is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

KAISHEEN HOLDINGS, LLC VS EVERELLE DEVELOPMENT, LP

Course of Proceedings On April 10, 2020, the court granted Kaisheen’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction (“OSC”) only as to the cutting down trees. The court ruled that Everelle was permitted to go forward with construction on Lot 11. The court directed Kaisheen to personally serve the TRO/OSC.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LUCIANO M FRANCO VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC ET AL

Defendants filed an ex parte application on March 9, 2020, petitioning the court for an order enforcing the parties’ 998 settlement agreement, a signed copy of which was filed on March 11, 2020. At the March 10, 2020 hearing, the court scheduled the ex parte application to be heard as a regular noticed motion. The court allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs, but none were filed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STANLEY VS. THE IRVINE COMPANY

On 5-28-2020, Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal of Irvine Management Company (Doe 1) and IAC at Jamboree, LLC was taken OFF-CALENDAR. (See ROA 70.) The Minute Order reflects that: (1) the parties agreed to submit a stipulation explaining the status of the pleadings; (2) counsel for Plaintiff was to submit a Notice of Errata; and (3) the Motion to Vacate currently on calendar for 6-30-2020 will remain at this time.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

LIZ REUBEN VS MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC

Defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC filed an opposition to the Ex Parte Application. The court grants plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application in part, and denies it in part, as follows. The court denies plaintiff’s request that the court issue an Order to Show Cause why defendant should not be held in contempt because the declaration submitted in support of the Ex Parte Application does not state a cause of action for contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1211, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 285     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.