What is a Motion for Forum Non Conveniens?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Forum Non Conveniens

Recent Rulings on Motion for Forum Non Conveniens

1-25 of 10000 results

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

The court should not issue terminating sanctions if there appears to be any justifiable reason, explanation, or excuse for non-compliance with the court’s discovery order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

On February 2, 2017, AHM’s demurrer to the non-California warranty claims and to the Mag-Moss claim (to the extent premised on non-California warranty claims) was sustained without leave to amend, and AHM’s motion to strike was granted without leave to amend. AHM filed its answer to the FAC on March 17, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

PTN OF RONALD WULFERDINGER

Proposed Order on Judicial Council Form GC-224 that contains specific, non- conclusory findings and the basis for each finding; factual basis must specifically state grounds of abuse, neglect and/or abandonment. Order must contain findings that (1) reunification with ward’s parents is not viable; and, (2) it is not in the ward’s best interest to return to his country of origin or last habitual residence and the reason for not returning.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF: WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, LLC

PETITION TO DEPOSIT PROCEEDS IS GRANTED. Background On July 17, 2020, Petitioner Western Progressive, LLC (hereinafter “Western Progressive”) filed the instant petition to deposit undistributed proceeds of trustee’s sale pursuant to Civil Code section 2924j. Legal Standard Civil Code section 2924j provides: If, after due diligen...

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Discovery Deadlines and Timing of Non-Expert & Expert Discovery B. Written Discovery The parties are not to engage in duplicative or repetitive discovery. The entry of this Case Management Order will not limit or bar discovery served prior to its effective date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TANIA PULLIAM VS HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC ET AL

Dept. 30 Calendar No. Pulliam vs. HNL Automotive, Inc., et. al., Case No. BC633169 Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs Defendant TD Auto Finance LLC (TDAF) moves to tax the attorney fees sought in the memorandum of costs as well as $4,444.03 from the total post judgment costs of $5,697.80. The motion is granted in p...

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

On September 19, 2020, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Don Lee Farms (“DLF”), and Cross-Defendants Daniel Goodman and Donald Goodman (the “Goodmans”) filed a notice of non-opposition to BMI’s motion. Due to the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS BMI’s motion for an order sealing certain documents that have been lodged conditionally under seal in support of its motion for sanctions. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

US REAL ESTATE CREDIT HOLDINGS III-A, LP VS SCOTT EISNER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STUART RUBIN CHILDREN'S TRUST, ET AL.

Case Name: US Real Estate Credit Holdings III-A, LP v. Eisner, et al. Case No.: 19SMCV02061 Complaint Filed: 11-25-19 Hearing Date: 9-29-20 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 5 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff U...

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Neither Defendant Rankins nor counsel was given notice of non-payment until receipt of this Motion in February 20202. (Opp., Smith Decl., ¶¶4-5.) Upon contacting Plaintiff’s counsel about resuming payments, Defendant Rankin and counsel have not heard anything. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE LEE VS ESWIN DELEON, ET AL.

The hearing on the claim for exemption is continued until Oct. 8, 2020 (non-appearance; status only) to determine if the motion has been filed and on what future date the motion to set aside has been noticed. The court will decide the substantive merits of the claim for exemption, if necessary, on the same day as the hearing on the motion to set aside the default judgment (when set).

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LAW OFFICES OF SAM X.J. WU, APC VS XINYU HU

However, because there is no apparent prejudice to Respondent from non-compliance with the ten-day requirement, the Court finds it is not a bar to confirmation of the Award. Therefore, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1283.6, 1288 or 1288.4 are satisfied. Confirmation of the Arbitration Award An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (CCP § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

Opposing Parties contend that: (1) the Site Assessment Report at issue was provided to DLF outside of this litigation and as such is a DLF business record which is not subject to the protective order; (2) BMI misrepresents its own exhibits to manufacture a non-existent attempted “cover-up”; and (3) sanctions are not warranted against Opposing Parties.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION VS EDWARD URBAN, ET AL.

This action arises from a dispute over construction Bond No. 10089293 (the “Bond”) in the penal sum of $15,000 for homeowner claimants or $7,500 for non-homeowner claimants. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 26.) Pursuant to the Application and Indemnity Agreement, Defendants Urban and On Top agreed to indemnify Plaintiff in exchange for issuance of the Bond. (Id. ¶¶6-7.) Remaining Defendants are alleged to have made claims on the Bond and are named only on the third cause of action for interpleader. (Id. at ¶¶8, 22-26.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

This water consumption is significant and is not consistent with the self-storage folks claiming that their water use will be ‘virtually non-existent’.” (AR 4410.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

WAYNE J STEWART VS. CITY OF OJAI

If a party submits on the tentative decision without appearing, but another party appears, the hearing will be conducted in the absence of the non-appearing party. Effective February 13, 2018, all cases assigned to Courtroom 20 are assigned for all purposes (including trial) to Judge Guasco.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

WAYNE J STEWART VS. CITY OF OJAI

If a party submits on the tentative decision without appearing, but another party appears, the hearing will be conducted in the absence of the non-appearing party. Effective February 13, 2018, all cases assigned to Courtroom 20 are assigned for all purposes (including trial) to Judge Guasco.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SCHON VS. VALORY

Under § 425.16(e), protected activity may include written or oral statements or a writing in a judicial proceeding; written or oral statements or a writing "made in connection with an issue under consideration or review" by a judicial body; written or oral statements or writings made in a public forum in connection with an issue or public interest, or other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of constitutional rights of free speech or petition in connection with an issue of public interest. In Baral v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SCHON VS. VALORY

The insurer's non- coverage position constituted a threat to the injured party’s own personal interests in having a means of recovering for the tort. The injured party’s interest in the policy coverage was admittedly indirect through the insured, but nevertheless it was quite distinct from the interests of the insured (the alleged tortfeasor).

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MCMAHON VS. HENDRICKS

The dispute centers on whether ECHS had the exclusive right to all net proceeds of McMahon’s bingo operations and she was their agent, or whether she was always a non-agent independent Each side has filed a complaint against the other: McMahon a complaint for Defamation in Case No. C15-01622; and ECHS a complaint for Conversion, Concealment Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and an Accounting in Consolidated Case No. C16-01615.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

KORB VS. ROMERO

Liability and Damages For All Non-Tort Causes of Action (1st, 2d, 4th, and 5th) The Court has reviewed all of the deemed admissions, and it agrees with plaintiff that they entitle plaintiff to judgment (on all causes of action without differentiation) in the following amounts:  Economic damages: $22,000.00  Statutory damages and penalties: $32,500.00  Prejudgment interest on the above items: $ 8,982.13 However, the Court does not include emotional-distress damages as to the non-tort causes of action,

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MARY SWANSTON VS JULIE CHIRIKIAN, ET AL.

Plaintiff continued to deteriorate and on May 5, 2019, an Arcadia Gardens caregiver contacted a friend of plaintiff’s because the caregiver was concerned that plaintiff appeared non-responsive. The complaint alleges that the caregiver contacted Arcadia Gardens’ nursing staff due to these concerns, but the nursing staff failed to intervene and refused to contact emergency services.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PATRICIA D'EGIDIO VS SOUTH COAST COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC, INC., ET AL.

The elements of a section 1102.5(b) cause of action require that: “(1) the plaintiff establish a prima facie case of retaliation, (2) the defendant provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory explanation for its acts, and (3) the plaintiff show this explanation is merely a pretext for the retaliation.” (Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1384.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DEMETRIO HARO, ET AL. VS C&P PROPERTIES #1, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Defendant's sole argument is that non-economic damages relating to an emotional distress claim may not be pled in an action for property damage and is irrelevant to the operative FAC, where no emotional distress claim is pled.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DEANNA AIVAZIAN VS. SARKIS TERSAKIAN ET AL

Relevant Background On February 24, 2020, the matter proceeded to a non-jury trial. On February 27, 2020, after the matter was tried to the Court, the Court found as follows regarding the TAC: On March 25, 2020, Judgment after Court Trial was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Napa in the amount of $2,334.80, and in favor of Fain. On April 2, 2020, Fain filed a memorandum of costs, requesting $1,464.63 in costs for filing and motion fees, fees for electronic filing or service, and other.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LUIS RODRIGUEZ VS. SECRET RECIPES, INC.

Plaintiff’s notice of Defendant’s non-opposition to the motion dated 11/15/18, and the notice of ruling on the motion dated 11/19/18; (5)-(6) Defendant’s motion for order granting relief from the 11/16/13 order on Plaintiff’s motion to compel dated 12/12/18 and the Court’s 1/11/19 order denying the motion; (7) notice of appeal dated 3/7/19; (8)-(11) OSC re contempt documents filed in this action; (12) defense counsel’s declaration dated 4/3/19 in support of Defendant’s compliant with 11/16/18 order; (13) 4/15

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.