What is a Motion for Joinder / to Join?

Useful Resources for Motion for Joinder / to Join

Recent Rulings on Motion for Joinder / to Join

ROBERT FISHER, ET AL VS, ROBERT D. ENTWISLE, ET AL

Procedure (5[ ed2008), Pleading, §972, citing Code Civi Procedure §389.) The demurer to the Complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Pro, § 430.10(d) is denied. Defendant may bring a noticed motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 389(a). E. Motion to Strike Code Civ. Proc, § 436, permits a court to strike portions of a complaint that are irrelevant, improper, or not drawn in conformity with the law and are not essential to cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

GABRIEL JOEL CLOPTON VS CHANGHYUN PARK, ET AL.

Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) However, “[a]s a general rule, ‘[t]he automatic stay of section 362(a) protects only the debtor, property of the debtor or property of the estate. It does not protect non-debtor parties or their property. Thus, section 362(a) does not stay actions against guarantors, sureties, corporate affiliates, or other non-debtor parties liable on the debts of the debtor.’” (In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc. (9th Cir. 1994) 23 F.3d 241, 246 quoting Advanced Ribbons & Office Prods. v. U.S.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

Y.S. MEDIA AGENCY, INC. VS L & S BROTHERS LLC, ET AL.

The Instant Motion before the Court On December 18, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (a) to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, W Unlimited Inc., which is in possession of the funds that are subject of Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment action. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff opposed and filed evidentiary objections.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

BENFIT V. TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES (AMERICA) LIMITED

Motion for Joinder to Defendant’s (Triumph Motorcycles (America) Limited) Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Demurrer), filed on 10-19-20 under ROA No. 19, is DENIED. Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 1392 (superseded by statute on other grounds—Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349) states, “Saltz did not bring his own special motion to strike but joined in UDR's motions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

KEITH KIRKALDY VS ELEVATOR BOUTIQUE, INC., ET AL.

If Cross-Defendant believes necessary parties must be joined, Cross-Defendant should make a motion to join those parties or dismiss the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389. The thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth affirmative defenses allege that public policy and statutory compliance bar enforcement of a private agreement. Cross-Defendant does not cite any law that this is an affirmative defense.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SIMONE FEE VS MALIBU WINES

DEFENDANT SKB EXPERIENCES, LLC DBA MALIBU WINE HIKES’ MOTION Whether Joinder is Proper Defendant Hikes has filed a motion to join Defendants Semler and AAI’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. A party may join a motion for summary judgment by filing a separate statement that identifies the evidence demonstrating that the joining party is entitled to summary judgment. (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 636.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EZRA HUBER VS VITALI ELKABETZ, ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 389 provides in part: (a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SARA HART VS DEBORAH PERLMAN, ET AL

Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (a), provides that a plaintiff must join a person as a party in the action if “(1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

BRETT O'BRIEN, ET AL. VS JOHN GOULD

Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) But, if a necessary and indispensable “cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.” ((Id., § 389, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KIM FUNDING LLC VS CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Applying these authorities, the court first evaluates the requirements of CCP § 389(a). - CCP § 389(a)(1) Chicago Title relies on CCP § 389(a)(1) for its argument that, regardless of whether the Receiver is allowed to pursue ANI's claims against Chicago Title in the SEC matter, ANI is a necessary party.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANTHONY CLARK VS IHSAN NIZAM

Code of Civil Procedure section 389 provides in part: (a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SAN LUIS OBISPO WELLNESS CENTER, CORP. V. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Proc., § 389.) The City therefore argues Petitioner’s claim is moot. In reply, Petitioner argues that it has a valid beneficial interest, and that the City should not have issued the permit to SLOCal Roots, LLC, or alternatively it should have issued a conditional permit until final resolution of this action. Petitioner argues it does not lack standing because the City prematurely awarded its permit to a third-party following initiation of this action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

MAFYS US., INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS ALEX ASSOULINE, ET AL.

Proc. § 389(a). Defendants, thus, fail to meet their burden to demonstrate that these potential plaintiffs are indispensable, rather than merely permissive, parties to this action. The court therefore OVERRULES this basis for the demurrers. B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GABRIEL JOEL CLOPTON VS CHANGHYUN PARK, ET AL.

Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) DISCUSSION The Court finds the motion must be denied and the proceedings must be stayed. Defendant Hertz is an indispensable party. Defendant Hertz is alleged to be liable for the negligent entrustment of an automobile with Defendant Park who, in turn, caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (Compl., pp. 4-5.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

CALIFORNIA PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROBERT J. HUIZENGA

Proc. § 389, subd. (a).) “If a person is determined to qualify as a ‘necessary’ party under one of the standards outlined above, courts then determine if the party is also ‘indispensable.’ Under this analysis ‘the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROSALES VS. CDS LAWYER, APC

Defendants CDS, Providence and Karpeles (collectively, “CDS Defendants”) seek to dismiss Plaintiff Rosales’ Complaint based on Code of Civil Procedure section 389. Specifically, the CDS Defendants argue that SLG is an indispensable party who has not been and cannot be served since there is no California entity named as SLG. As such, the CDS Defendants contend that this action must be dismissed. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff Rosales served SLG and Defendant Christopher Stead by publication.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

MOORE VS. CONSUMER DEBT SOLUTIONS LAW GROUP

CDS Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff Moore’s Complaint based on Code of Civil Procedure section 389, 583.210 and 583.250. Specifically, the CDS Defendants argue that Stead Law Group, PLLC (“SLG”) is an indispensable party who has not been and cannot be served within 3 years since there is no such California entity. Generally, dismissal is mandatory where a plaintiff fails to serve a defendant with the summons and complaint within 3 years after the action is commenced. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

BRANDON HARBERSON VS. MICHAEL EDMOND SAYEGH

CCP § 389(a). Defendant makes no attempt to establish any of these factors as to Moreno or the auto shop.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DADSON WASHER SERVICE, INC. VS WASH MULTIFAMILY LAUNDRY SYSTEMS, LLC

(CCP § 389(a).) Section 389 limits compulsory joinder to those situations in which the “absence of a person may result in substantial prejudice to that person or to the parties already before the court.” (Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 438, 460.) “Whether a party is necessary and/or indispensable is a matter of trial court discretion in which the court weighs ‘factors of practical realities and other considerations.’” (Ibid.) Here, PMI Westerly is not an indispensable party.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY VS TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SOUTH, INC.

It gives the nonparty the right to intervene in cases where his or her joinder has not yet been ordered, but could be ordered, under the CCP § 389 rules. (Id.) Here, Prospective Intervenor certainly has an interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of this litigation. Plaintiff, as Prospective Intervenor’s subrogee, assumed the legal right to attempt to collect from Defendant for payments to the third-party consulting firm. (Declaration of Patrick M. Maloney “Maloney Decl.” ¶¶ 6-10.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DOE VS DOE

Specially appearing defendant Doe 2's motion for joinder is granted. Plaintiff has established that the settlement between him and Doe 2 and its related entities was reached in good faith and is within the ballpark as required by the Court in Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3 488, based on facts and evidence provided. Doe 2 is released from any liability of indemnity and contribution.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.