What is an ex parte application?

Useful Rulings on Ex Parte Application

Recent Rulings on Ex Parte Application

DAWN GIBBS VS RECREATION VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ET AL

“A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or 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

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CAMPUZANO VS. CONTRERAS

Faced with dilemma caused by Covid-19, Defendants should have moved ex parte application for the court to grant or specially set the discovery stay. Without a court ruling, Plaintiff is correct that discovery shall proceed while the motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action are pending. Currently, these motions are set seven weeks away on November 9, 2020. Even if this case was ordered to arbitration, the parties would be required to engage in necessary discovery.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF: MARION PIUZE

In light of the issues presented, the Court CONTINUES Petitioner Marion Piuze's Ex Parte Application For Order Appointing Corporate Director to September 28, 2020, 8:30 a.m. The Court needs additional time to review the petition filed and the applicable authority. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CAMPUZANO VS. CONTRERAS

Faced with dilemma caused by Covid-19, Defendants should have moved ex parte application for the court to grant or specially set the discovery stay. Without a court ruling, Plaintiff is correct that discovery shall proceed while the motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action are pending. Currently, these motions are set seven weeks away on November 9, 2020. Even if this case was ordered to arbitration, the parties would be required to engage in necessary discovery.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, ET AL. VS PARK WELLINGTON OWNERS' ASSOCIATION

On December 26, 2019, pursuant to an Ex Parte Application for an Order Dismissing the First Amended Complaint with Prejudice, wherein all parties stipulated to the case being dismissed and further stipulated that the Court retain jurisdiction to hear a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, the Court ordered the entire case dismissed with prejudice. Defendant now seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $35,790.10 against Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

FRANK MCHUGH VS ADAM GREENFIELD, ET AL.

Greenfield failed to deliver the deed of trust pursuant to the amended judgment and upon an ex parte application by Plaintiff on December 19, 2018, the Court ordered the clerk to execute and notarize the deed of trust. (Id. at ¶ 11.) On December 20, 2018, Defendant Adam L. Greenfield executed grant deeds transferring his sole ownership of APN’s 6316-006-017 and 6316-006-010 to himself and Claire Marin Greenfield as joint tenants. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PDTW, LLC VS. KRING & CHUNG

The remaining costs at issue are associated with courtesy copies of Defendants’ ex parte application and demurrer. The receipts show that One Legal billed for making photocopies of the courtesy copies, for serving the courtesy copies, and (in the case of the ex parte application) for serving the courtesy copy urgently. Except for trial documents, the Court does not require courtesy copies in Department CX104. Rather, the Court tries to operate in as paperless a fashion as possible.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

FRANK MCHUGH VS ADAM GREENFIELD, ET AL.

Greenfield failed to deliver the deed of trust pursuant to the amended judgment and upon an ex parte application by Plaintiff on December 19, 2018, the Court ordered the clerk to execute and notarize the deed of trust. (Id. at ¶ 11.) On December 20, 2018, Defendant Adam L. Greenfield executed grant deeds transferring his sole ownership of APN’s 6316-006-017 and 6316-006-010 to himself and Claire Marin Greenfield as joint tenants. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS KKW BEAUTY, LLC, FORMERLY KKW BEAUTY, INC.

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal: (1) the Court’s June 26, 2020 minute order granting in part Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a TRO and for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue (the Minute Order); and (2) exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ informal discovery conference statement, filed July 1, 2020 (Exhibit A). II.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JIEYUN CUI VS CHUN-NAN LO, ET AL.

The file shows that on June 7, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application brought by plaintiff for a temporary restraining order, which was granted, and the court ordered that defendant PID-5, LP, care of Pacific International not transfer any interest in funds in a Wells Fargo Bank account. This matter on a writ of attachment was set originally set for hearing on July 26, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the hearing satisfies this prerequisite. The non-moving party must also demonstrate: “(1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts.” (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 633.) 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS COTY, INC., ET AL.

(application to stay); and (5) Matthew Caplan’s declaration in support of Kylie’s ex parte application to stay (Caplan’s declaration).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STONE ASH LLC VS STONE ASH LLC

On a subsequent ex parte application (ROA 175) which was set for a noticed motion (ROA 178-179), this case was consolidated with the two existing cases. The court reasoned that a "three-way dispute over the same approximate $10,000,000.00 in cash and assets" needed to be resolved in the same trial. ROA 211. This caused further disruption in the schedule. ROA 209. The trial had to be continued to June 2020. ROA 206.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WYMONT SERVICES, LTD. V. HANDAL & ASSOCIATES

On 08/28/20, this Court denied Wymont’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on that motion, or to “confirm” an appellate stay of the action. At that time, this Court invited the parties to address the question at the upcoming hearing on the various pending motions. There is a pending trial date, subject to a separate motion to continue filed by Wymont pre-COVID on 02/13/20. Although the vacated trial date rendered that motion technically moot, the motion was re-set to 09/17/20.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

IVANNA SEABLOM VS DZHAMILYA KURBANOVA

However, as of 9/11/20, Defendant has not amended her answer or filed any ex parte application to do so. Therefore, the motion is denied because Defendant did not plead a statute of limitations bar in her answer. What is more, even if Defendant amended her answer prior to the hearing on this matter, Defendant fails to establish Plaintiff was aware of her identity as a matter of law. Analysis Defendant provides evidence that the Traffic Collision Report (“TCR”) identifies her.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

CIVIC FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS TENSUN 42 LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The court granted the ex parte application, appointed Singer as Receiver, and set September 17, 2019 for an order to show cause (“OSC”) re: confirmation of a receiver. Singer filed his Oath of Receiver on August 27, 2019. On September 17, 2019, the court confirmed the Receiver’s appointment. Tenson’s default was entered on November 14, 2019. B.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS VS. SAM CHANIN, ET AL

On July 17, 2019, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC to add names of plaintiffs. The original plaintiff is Community Rebuild Partners, LLC (“CRP, LLC”). That entity is neither the true owner of the property nor the party named on the Interim Occupancy Agreement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JUAN PEREZ VS AZER ERANA ET AL

Plaintiff then filed yet another ex parte application to continue the trial date, which the Court granted. The Court set the new trial date for January 28, 2020. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to be relieved. The motion was set for hearing on February 13, 2020, so Plaintiff’s counsel filed an ex parte application to shorten time on the pending motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

CA PROUTY LLC VS LUSYS LABORATORIES INC

Preliminary Matters The notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 474.050 were satisfied because the ex parte application papers were deemed the moving papers. ROA # 39. Defendants' foundation and hearsay objections to paragraph 3 of Dale Prouty's declaration are sustained. All other objections are overruled. The Court notes that while the general rule is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers, evidence may "fill gaps" that were created by the opposition. Jay v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(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

    Sep 16, 2020

EVELYN RAMOS VS 4688 HUNTINGTON DRIVE LLC ET AL

On 2/18/20, the court granted Defendant’s ex parte application to continue the trial, which continued the trial date to 5/13/20. However, the court’s order explicitly stated, “All discovery and motion cut-off dates remain closed, except for any motion hearing set according to the previously scheduled cut off dates. Counsel may reopen discovery by filing a noticed motion.” (Minute Order 2/18/20.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

IN RE THE SYLVIA JUNE ASAVIS TRUST DATED MAY 22, 2015

If the Atascadero Property is sold prior to the instant ex parte application being heard, to impose a constructive trust over the proceeds. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Legal Authority.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendants here had a legal right to occupancy under the parties’ August 25, 2020 stipulation at the time they filed their ex parte application to assert their rights under the CDC order. Their ex parte application was initially presented to the Court on September 9, 2020, six days before their deadline to moveout on September 15, 2020. Accordingly, the Court finds that they are residents with a lawful right to occupancy within the meaning of “Covered persons” under the CDC order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS GOODFELLAS CAFE

Analysis: On August 10, 2020, the Court denied without a hearing the County’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction. No new application has been filed. No motion for a preliminary injunction has been filed. No voluntary dismissal has been entered.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

the virtual data room created for the sale of the assets, and opposed Brian’s ex parte application for such relief on August 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 303     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.