What is a Motion for Failure to Prosecute?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Failure to Prosecute

Recent Rulings on Motion for Failure to Prosecute

AZIZ ALAQUI VS YEVGENIY VAYNERMAN

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

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SALISBURY GROUP, INC. V. EDALAT

Elsewhere in the Cross-Complaint, it is alleged that Cross-Complainant alleges that he did not know “the extent of Cross-Defendants’ lack of attention and communication, failure to prosecute and defend against claims, and overbilling… until approximately September 8, 2017, after SGI sent billing statements, dated from September 2015 through January 2017, seeking payment of $80,008.78.” (XC at ¶ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MANUEL CELEYA AGUILAR VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 provides that an action can be dismissed under appropriate circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410, subd. (a).) Dismissal must be made “pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410, subd. (b).) Dismissal is permitted when an action has not been brought to trial within three years of its commencement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420, subd. (a)(2)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA ALVAREZ VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 provides that an action can be dismissed under appropriate circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410, subd. (a).) Dismissal must be made “pursuant to the procedure and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410, subd. (b).) Dismissal is permitted when an action has not been brought to trial within three years of its commencement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420, subd. (a)(2)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WAILES V. SI SE PUEDE AUTOS, INC.

On May 5, 2020, this court issued an Order to Show Cause to attorney Louis Liberty why he should not be sanctioned up to $1,000 for his failure to prosecute the action. That OSC was set to be heard on August 7, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the court received a letter from Mr. Liberty indicating he had been suspended from the practice of law.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

BRENT SILVER VS KIARASH Z. TEHRANI, ET AL.,

A court may, in its discretion, dismiss an action for delay in prosecution if it has not been brought to trial or “conditionally settled” within 2 years after the action is commenced. CCP §§ 583.410, 583.420(a)(2); and CRC 3.1340. Defendant submitted a declaration on 3-20-19 detailing Plaintiff’s delay and failure to prosecute. The Court refers Plaintiff to ¶¶9-28 of the declaration of J. Najemy filed on 3-20-19 and served on Richards on that date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAIME LINARES VS NANCY MORALES ET AL

The Court set the matter for an OSC re: dismissal due to failure to prosecute for 3/16/20. Plaintiff failed to appear on 3/16/20, and the Court again dismissed the case. Plaintiff again moves to vacate the dismissal. Notably, though Plaintiff has still not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant was served in November of 2019, and Defendant filed an answer on 12/04/19.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES INC VS CAROLYN LOWD DANIELS ET AL

Cross-Defendant Mercury now moves for its dismissal from the Cross-Complaint for failure to prosecute. Legal Standard CCP section 583.420 provides: (a) The court may not dismiss an action pursuant to this article for delay in prosecution except after one of the following conditions has occurred: (1) Service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ABEDI V. WEISLER

Proc., § 583.420, subd. (a) [“The court may not dismiss an action . . . for delay in prosecution except after one of the following conditions has occurred: [¶] (1) Service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant.“].) A memorandum of points and authorities must contain a concise statement of the law and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

YONG PYO HONG VS HENRY M LEE ET AL

As such, Plaintiff fails to establish he could have obtained a better result but for Defendants’ failure to prosecute the collection matter or to appear for the debtor’s examination proceedings, or demonstrated that he has suffered any non-speculative damages due to Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiff, thus, fails to demonstrate he is entitled to judgment against Defendants for the value of the $1,602,250 judgment against WCTU.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

THANH HUU NGUYEN VS HOANG LAM DAO, ET AL.

On 6/26/19, the Court held a Case Management Conference and OSC re: failure to prosecute and dismissal. Plaintiff appeared at the hearing through Counsel, Thomas Emmitt. The Court’s minute order includes the following statement: “The Court, pursuant to an oral request made by Plaintiff, orders the Complaint filed by Thanh Huu Nguyen on 11/02/18 dismissed without prejudice.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

J CAMERON HANSEN VS. SO CAL DOMINOIDS INC [E-FILE]

It is clear that this case would not warrant dismissal for delay in prosecution under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.150. Instead, defendant argues that issues of manageability necessitate dismissal. This is not authorized by section 583.150. The Court also declines to dismiss the action under its inherent authority under section 581(m). A PAGA claim is brought on a representative basis. A PAGA plaintiff is not required to satisfy class certification requirements. Arias v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JHON DORIA VS MANOUCHER SHIRBACHEH ET AL

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

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VS ABBOTT, MARISA

On February 27, 2020, Defendant Mikail filed the instant Motion to/for Mandatory Dismissal for Delay in Prosecution (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed. At the initial hearing on June 22, 2020, the Court noted several deficiencies in Defendant Mikail’s proof of service and expressed concern that Plaintiff had not been properly served with the Motion. (6/22/20 Minute Order.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RON DAYAN, ET AL. VS. QIJIE ZHAO

CCP § 583.410 provides that the Court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

MICHAEL LAWSON VS. JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Therefore, the court hereby issues an Order to Petitioner to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause will occur on October 22, 2020, at 9 a.m. in this Department. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.43: “(1) The Civil Litigation Division shall operate a tentative ruling system for Unlimited Civil law and motion. The tentative rulings can be obtained beginning at 1:30 p.m. the court day preceding the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Judge

    Baskin

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RACHEL WOODS VS JEFFREY GREENE COULTER

Accordingly, the court sets an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute on September 25, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. The court will hear from the parties as to whether a continuance of the trial date is desired in light of the court's setting of the OSC.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SHAHIN S FATEMIAN ET AL VS GARFIELD PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT CO

.: BC650643 Matter on calendar for: Motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaint; trial setting conference; CMC; OSC Re: dismissal for failure to prosecute; OSC Re: Sanctions for plaintiff’s counsel and Farmers Insurance Exchange Counsel for failure to appear at August 3, 2020 hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RACHEL WOODS VS JEFFREY GREENE COULTER

Accordingly, the court sets an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute on September 25, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. The court will hear from the parties as to whether a continuance of the trial date is desired in light of the court's setting of the OSC.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

FERNANDO GARCIA VS CITY OF DOWNEY ET AL

Importantly, plaintiff does not dispute the finding of probable cause to arrest and prosecute and has presented no evidence to support a finding of a triable issue of fact concerning unreasonable delay in prosecution.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

GONZALEZ VS PARKVIEW COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

For the OSC for failure to comply with the Court’s order of 8/19/19, failure to file CMC statements and OSC for failure to prosecute, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Rodolfo Rey MD and Javier Rios MD without prejudice. On its own motion, based on the fact that the Court has dismissed the complaint, the Court shall take off calendar Rodolfo Rey MD’s motion for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

KIRK C. CHAMBERLIN VS MEADOW LAY

.: dismissal based upon a failure to prosecute) and a discovery issue. The ZL case had nothing to do with a special motion to strike or the statute’s application to claims of defamation. Further, the mere fact that Plaintiff has alleged the untruthfulness of the statement and/or the defamatory nature of the statement is insufficient grounds. It is the facts surrounding the statement and/or publication that are considered. Here, the alleged statements are covered under C.C.P. §425.16(e)(2).

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

LAKEISHA FERNANDEZ VS WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC.

A motion to quash service of summons may be brought by a defendant on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, to stay or dismiss the action due to an inconvenient forum, or to dismiss the action for delay in prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10.) A motion to quash may also be brought to quash a subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3.) Neither applies here. However, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s arguments as follows.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP VS ALY ABDELRAHIM

Defendant subsequently filed an amended motion to dismiss on July 24, 2020, on the basis of a delay in prosecution and because Defendant’s name was misspelled. Defendant withdrew the motion on July 27, 2020. In light of this erratic behavior, Defendant shall refrain from further frivolous filings or shall be subject to sanctions. Additionally, the court notes that Plaintiff’s request appears disingenuous.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP VS ALY ABDELRAHIM

Defendant subsequently filed an amended motion to dismiss on July 24, 2020, on the basis of a delay in prosecution and because Defendant’s name was misspelled. Defendant withdrew the motion on July 27, 2020. In light of this erratic behavior, Defendant shall refrain from further frivolous filings or shall be subject to sanctions. Additionally, the court notes that Plaintiff’s request appears disingenuous.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 49     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.