What is a Motion for Failure to Prosecute?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Failure to Prosecute

Recent Rulings on Motion for Failure to Prosecute

ANDREWS VS LEONE HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF ANDREWS BY ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Allstate has made no attempt to comply with that General Order and has failed to explain its failure to prosecute its demurrer. The Court notes that Allstate has also failed to meet and confer in the manner specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.31. The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

JOEY ROMO, ET AL. VS WENDY MILLER, ET AL.

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

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BECK V. CATANZARITE, ET AL.

Kim (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705 for the proposition that “a voluntary dismissal is presumed to be a favorable termination on the merits, because ‘a failure to prosecute does reflect on the merits of the action.’” (Opp. at p. 13.) While these cases support this general statement of law, neither case supports his position that it is applicable here.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

CRISTINA LOPEZ VS. AMIGOS FUERZA INC

Plaintiff's failure to name the individual defendants is tantamount to a delay in prosecution. It does not entitle the individual defendants to an order lifting the stay. (Titan, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 489 [court has no authority to grant relief for delay in bringing arbitration]; Byerly v. Sale (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1312, 1316 ["only the arbitrator should determine whether there has been an

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL CASTRO VS FOSS MARITIME COMPANY ET AL

Now, Rio Hondo moves for the recovery of attorney’s fees incurred as an item of allowable costs, and for failure to prosecute in good faith pursuant to CCP §§128.7, 1033, and 1038. CCP §128.7: Rio Hondo’s Motion for CCP §128.7 sanctions is DENIED. “A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violation subdivision (b).” (emphasis added.) (CCP §128.7(c)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RUVOLO V. WALMART CORPORATION

(See also, Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2)(B).) Defendant—Walmart Corporation is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

THE ESTATE OF GEORGIA MAU ET AL VS MERIDIAIN OF WEST HILLS A

“The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.” (Code of Civil Procedure §583.410.) The court may dismiss as to a particular defendant if service is not made on that defendant within two years after the action is commenced against that defendant. (Code of Civil Procedure §583.420(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JAMES REED VS ROBERT LAFLEUR

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

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

ANTHONY BRUCE RILEY VS. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

On May 22, 2020, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. There is no opposition from Petitioner. On June 26, 2020, however, it appears Petitioner attempted to file a request for voluntary dismissal. The court clerk rejected the filing because one section of the form had not been completed. Petitioner has failed to bring the matter to trial within two years and has abandoned this action. Pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1342(e), the petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

DODGE VS VANHATTEN

The CMC now set for January 27, 2021 is also calendared for an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and plaintiff’s failure to participate and remain in touch with her attorney. All parties are informed that effective January 1, 2021, this case is reassigned to Department 7 (Judge Baskin).

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

AZADEH EGHTERAFI VS MALLORY SEPLERKING ET AL

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

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

AURA IGLESIAS VS RONALD KEITH ZIFF ET AL

Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ failure to prosecute the Burbank Action resulted in all facts being admitted against Plaintiff as to the Escrow Defendants, thereby causing the Court’s the dismissal of Toth and All Brokers. (SAC ¶¶76, 112.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

SHANELLE MARTINEZ VS MARK HAZEN

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Prosecute is scheduled for December 1, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Michael Shemtoub seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff because irreconcilable differences have arisen in the attorney-client relationship.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

BERNARDO RAMIREZ ZARATE VS CAMINO REAL CHEVROLET, ET AL.

The Court will also entertain views regarding whether the Court shall issue an Order to Show Cause as to why plaintiff’s complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MUNOZ VS ASPIRE GENERAL

HEARING ON OSC RE: WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLTF'S FTA AT 10/06/20 CMC AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE * TENTATIVE RULING: * Appear.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

DEE ANN BLESING VS WELLS FARGO BANK OF ESCONDIDO MAIN

The foregoing constitutes good cause to dismiss this action owing to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. See Cal. Gov't Code § 68608(b).

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

MURPHY VS. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA INC

Defendant Hilbers, Inc. brings this motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. "The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case." CCP §583.410(a).

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARK FABRIZIO VS DEVONA WOODS

LEGAL STANDARD “The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution. . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.410.) However, a court must first find either: (1) service has not been effectuated within two years since commencement of the action, (2) an action is not brought to trial within three years after it is commenced against a defendant, or (3) a new trial is granted and the action is not brought to trial within a certain time. (Code Civ. Proc. § 583.420, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

ZERRY CARTER VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

CCP Section 583.420 California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420, subdivision (a)(1) allows a court to dismissal an action for a delay in prosecution when service of the summons is not made within two years of the commencement of the action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

GAMBINO VS SOTO

An OSC is set for this morning against the Plaintiff personally for failure to prosecute the matter.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

MALTEZ VS. GURSOY

The dismissal occurred just one month short of the period mentioned in Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420 allowing discretionary dismissal after two years has elapsed without service of the complaint. Counsel for the Plaintiff waited almost the full six months allowed by section 473(b) before filing the motion to vacate the dismissal entered on January 15.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MALTEZ VS. JIMENEZ

Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that the period within which the complaint must be served after it is filed is two years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DEXTER GAINES VS JOSE UTZURRUM

On August 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal of the district court decision for failure to prosecute. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s two causes of action are predicated on Defendant’s legal services rendered to Plaintiff while Defendant served as Plaintiff’s attorney in the underlying district court action. Because the district court action terminated on August 28, 2018, these causes of action accrued, at the latest, on August 28, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAVID WANG VS DIANE E. WANG

On April 17, 2019, counsel for plaintiff failed to appear and the court set an OSC re Sanctions including Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute on June 17, 2019. On June 6, 2019, the court entered default against defendant. On June 17, 2019, the court discharged the OSC re Sanctions and set an OSC re Entry of Default Judgment on September 6, 2019. Defendant did not appear. Counsel for plaintiff appeared at the September 6, 2019 OSC and the court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

CONCHO VS SKY BILLIARDS INC.

., CCP §583.160 [court’s inherent authority]; CCP §583.410 [discretion to dismiss for delay in prosecution].) Indeed, it is a prerequisite to the certification of a class that the class representative demonstrates she will be an “adequate representative” of the putative class because she has both the ability and the willingness to pursue the class members’ claims vigorously.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 50     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.