What is a Motion for Failure to Prosecute?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Failure to Prosecute

Recent Rulings on Motion for Failure to Prosecute

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOHN A BATCHELOR COMP

. §473(b) where an action is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOHNSON V. HUNTING RIDGE MOTORS, INC.

Counsel for the plaintiff did not appear at the August 22, 2018 continued Case Management Conference hearing, and after giving notice, the case was dismissed by the court on November 21, 2018 for failure to prosecute when again there was no appearance. The case was later re-instated at the request of the plaintiff. On December 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed an affidavit showing service by publication was made in the New York paper.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

CAMERON GRIMSLEY VS PROVIDENCE ST JOHNS HEALTH CENTER

Proc. § 583.410.) However, the Court cannot conclude that the record supports a dismissal of the entire action. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for general negligence and medical malpractice. Plaintiff alleges that between March 1 and March 6, 2018, Defendant was negligent and reckless in providing medical treatment to Plaintiff. (Complaint, p. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

NANCY DAVIS VS JOAN WHITE, ET AL.

Finally, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s erroneous contention that it lacks the authority to dismiss an action prior to the two-year period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410. Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410, et seq. is not the Court’s only statutory authority to dismiss an action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

TERN, CYNTHIA ET AL VS BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ET AL

The Court issues an Order to Show Cause why this proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within three years pursuant to CCP 583.420(a)(2)(A), and for failure to serve the Respondents within two years pursuant to CCP 583.420(a)(1). A hearing on the Order to Show Cause is set for August 12, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. The Clerk is directed to send notice of the OSC to Petitioners at their individual addresses.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

A.G. PROPERTIES, INC. VS RANDLE UNGER, ET AL.,

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court misapplied CRC Rule 3.1340 and Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420. Under CRC Rule 3.1340(b), “If the court intends to dismiss an action on its own motion, the clerk must set a hearing on the dismissal and send notice to all parties at least 20 days before the hearing date.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERTO GOMEZ VS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC ET AL

Failure to appear at the July 10, 2020 trial setting conference may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.” In item 13: Counsel must include the following language: “Moving Counsel is ordered to serve all parties, including Client, with a copy of this signed order and file proof of service of such within two court days.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERTO GOMEZ VS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING & SERVICES INC ET AL

Failure to appear at the July 10, 2020 trial setting conference may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.” In item 13: Counsel must include the following language: “Moving Counsel is ordered to serve all parties, including Client, with a copy of this signed order and file proof of service of such within two court days.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANCES YANEZ VS JOSE CHRISTOPHER VASQUEZ

. §473(b) where an action is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS ABBOTT, MARISA

In addition, on February 27, 2020, Defendant Mikail filed the instant Motion to/for Mandatory Dismissal for Delay in Prosecution (the “Motion to Dismiss”). To date, no opposition has been filed. Motion to Dismiss Defendant Mikail moves the Court for an order dismissing this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.210 and 583.250. (Mot. to Dismiss, p. 1:16-21.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VERSAILLES INVESTMENTS, LLC V. CATANZARITE

Catanzarite and Catanzarite Law Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) seek an order lifting the Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 stay, for the limited purpose of addressing this motion to dismiss and dismissing the action as to Plaintiff Versailles Investments, LLC (“Versailles”) for failure to prosecute. As an initial matter, the Court notes Defendants properly served the moving papers. The opposition by interested party Thomas H.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

DUCK JIN CHOI ET AL VS JACQUELYN DEHAVEN ET AL

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410, the court may dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if the plaintiff does not serve the defendant within two years, or bring the action to trial within three years. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.410, 583.420.) Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1342, “A party seeking dismissal of a case under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410-583.430 must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion.” (Cal.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

GREGORY YONGPAE PARK VS GABRIELA MICHELLE PALACIOS

Proc. § 583.410(a) and CRC 3.1340, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action premised on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this Action is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ANDERS VS. OCEANS ELEVEN CASINO

On December 19, 2019, defendants Ogletree, Skeen, and Johnson (collectively, the Ogletree Defendants) filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Action for Delay in Prosecution. On December 20, 2019, Defendants Lack, the Kelegians, and the Casino (collectively, the Casino Defendants) filed a Joinder in Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Plaintiff opposed on January 3, 2020. Both sets of defendants filed reply briefs on February 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDERS VS. OCEANS ELEVEN CASINO

On December 19, 2019, defendants Ogletree, Skeen, and Johnson (collectively, the Ogletree Defendants) filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Action for Delay in Prosecution. On December 20, 2019, Defendants Lack, the Kelegians, and the Casino (collectively, the Casino Defendants) filed a Joinder in Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Plaintiff opposed on January 3, 2020. Both sets of defendants filed reply briefs on February 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE LUJANO HERRERA ET AL VS CRESENSIO ALAVARRAN DOMINGUEZ

If Plaintiffs do not, they risk a dismissal for failure to prosecute the case. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

THOMAS ISHKANIAN VS PABLO M LAWNER MD ET AL

If Plaintiff fails to do so, Plaintiff risks dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KENDRA L. FESHBACH, ET AL. V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Dismiss Failure to Prosecute Motion to Dismiss Attorneys Alexandre Ian Cornelius and Justin Cohanghadosh for Plaintiffs Ariel Pierre Calonne, Tom R. Shapiro, Michael G. Coluntuono, Pamela K. Graham and Liliane M. Wyckoff for Defendant City of Santa Barbara Ruling: The Motion is DENIED. Analysis This case was filed in 8/2016; it is very clear that the motion to dismiss was brought in good faith but the Plaintiff’s declaration is persuasive.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

KENDRA L. FESHBACH, ET AL. V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Dismiss Failure to Prosecute Tentative

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

MARIA HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

The court sets the following dates: OSC re dismissal for delay in prosecution under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.420(a)(1): 6/30/2020 Final status conference: September 10, 2020 Trial: September 24, 2020

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

MARIA HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

The court sets the following dates: OSC re dismissal for delay in prosecution under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.420(a)(1): 6/30/2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Final Status Conference: September 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 29 of the spring Street Courthouse. Trial: September 24, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

FREDERICK D ROSS VS. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APP BPARD

Nature of Proceedings: TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.360. Petitioner was served with a copy of the motion but has not filed an opposition thereto. The Court’s tentative ruling is to grant the motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 provides an action must be brought to trial within five years of the date it is filed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

COAST REALTY SOLUTIONS, INC. V. HOGAN

The court ISSUES an Order to Show Cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as to all of the other defendants for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and apparent abandonment of the case. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause is set for March 18, 2020, at 8:30 am. The clerk shall give notice of the Order to Show Cause at both the e-mail and physical address of the plaintiff’s attorney. Notice The moving party shall give notice of the court’s minute order as to all items.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

LESLIE BAKEY VS. J PEDRO ZARATE

The sole ground for the requested severance is Zarate's failure to prosecute the FACC. However, there is no evidence that a July 21, 2020 trial date provides insufficient time for the parties to prepare for trial on the issues raised by the FACC. Moreover, the Court finds that the trial judge will be in the best position to determine the order in which issues are to be heard at trial. Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 598, the trial judge can make this determination on his or her own motion at any time.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SETH ROGERS V. ITY LABS CORP., ET AL.

“Failure to make a motion under this section at the time of filing a demurrer or motion to strike constitutes a waiver of the issues of lack of personal jurisdiction, inadequacy of process, inadequacy of service of process, inconvenient forum, and delay in prosecution.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (e)(3).) As explained in Air Machine Com SRL v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.