What is a Motion for Joinder / to Join?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Joinder / to Join

Recent Rulings on Motion for Joinder / to Join

JOE NOVOA VS MARKWINS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

(CCP § 389, subd. (a).) Plaintiff contends that Top to Bottom, Inc. is not a necessary party to this litigation because the named Defendants controlled the wages, hours, and working conditions of Plaintiff’s employment. (Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 16 at Ex. 1, 18; Opposition 4:12-14.) Thus, while Defendants may not have directly hired Plaintiff, that fact issue is not controlling at this pleading stage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK, A PUBLIC AGENCY

Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) If such a person (sometimes called a ‘necessary’ party) cannot be joined, subdivision (b) requires the court to consider ‘whether in equity and good conscience’ the suit can proceed without the absent party, or whether the suit should instead be dismissed without prejudice, ‘the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.’ (Id., subd. (b).).” (Bianka M. v. Sup.Ct. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1004, 1016-17.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THOMAS J MEZA, ET AL. VS BASILE & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (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

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ALI V. SKY TOUCH IMPORTS, INC.

Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) Whether the absent counties claim an interest in the subject of the action, whether that interest will be impaired, and whether they have the ability to protect their interests are questions of fact that are reviewed for substantial evidence.” First, Defendants’ Demurrer does not explain how there is a misjoinder of parties. Defendants do not describe there is a defect in the joinder of Defendants that appears on the face of the FAC.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

BROWN-UNITED, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MILLER, VALLES, GARDNER CPAS INC., ET AL.

Motion for Change of Venue Defendants move the court, per CCP § 389, for an order changing the venue of this action. Defendants represent that Plaintiffs have filed two other cases pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court—Central District (i.e., Case Nos.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CLAUDETTE MARIE LESLIE, ET AL. VS NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.

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

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

IN RE CLOUDERA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

The Court will prepare the order. 17 18 Footnote 10: Defendant Intel Corporation’s motion to join in the Cloudera Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED. Footnote 11: The registration statement incorporated these and other public filings by reference. (Consolidated Complaint, ¶ 39.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

DAVID AFZAL VS ROY YERUSHALMI ET AL

(CCP § 389(c).) Yerushalmi’s demurrer to Afzal’s SAC is sustained with leave to amend. B. Fourth Cause of Action Afzal’s fourth cause of action is grounded in the Contractors’ State License Law (CSLL) (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7000 et seq.).

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TIGRAN HAKOBYAN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A CORPORATION

California Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (b) states: “[i]f a person described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

SEIBERT V. SEIBERT

Motion: Defendant Wendy Seibert’s Motion to Join Kyle Seibert as an Indispensable Party Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion and dismiss this civil action. Plaintiff may file a motion for joinder pursuant to Family Code section 2021 in the pending family court action, case no. 15CEFL06847. Explanation: Plaintiff Janet Siebert is Kyle Siebert’s mother. Kyle was married to defendant Wendy Seibert.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KEITH GARL V. ROBERT NICHOLSON, BEN FERRARI, ET AL.

Defendants’ motion for joinder is granted. The Court defers ruling on Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement at this time.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

SAVE THE VALLEY LLC VS CHUMASH CASINO AND RESORT ENTERPRISES ET AL

The dismissal was without prejudice pursuant to CCP § 389(b). The court noted, however, that it is clear that plaintiff cannot cure the defect because it cannot sue the United States in this court. (The remaining individual defendants were Kenny Kahn, Vincent Armenta, Gary Pace, Raul Armenta, Maxine Littlejohn, Mike Lopez, and Bill Peters.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

HOWEY, JASON VS BATTERY SYSTEMS INC

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, and unopposed. b) Defendant Century 21 Real Estate LLC’s Motion for Joinder to Defendant Premier Valley Inc.’s Demurrer is GRANTED, and unopposed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

HARRY H: SHIN, ET AL VS, SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, ET AL

Proc. § 389, the statement itself is legally insufficient and reflects a misunderstanding of the applicable law regarding the joinder of necessary and indispensable parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430,10(d).) Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges that they granted an interest in the Subject Property to Pax America Development and Unimae on August 10, 2017. (Complaint 1T 35.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

JANE DOE VSR GARY TOTI) ET AL

Proc. § 389(a); see Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808—809 [a person is an indispensable party only when the judgment to be rendered necessarily must affect his rights].) Because they were not served with copies of the petition as required, the court lacked jurisdiction over them. (Generally Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808—809 [“A party cannot be properly joined unless served with the summons and complaint; notice does not substitute for proper service.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

GANESH PURAM VS. TOLL BROTHERS

Proc. § 389.) B. The First Cause of Action. 1. The Alleged Breach. Plaintiffs have not intelligibly alleged the nature of the alleged breach of contract, or how that alleged breach has caused plaintiffs injury. Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on this ground. In any amended complaint, plaintiffs shall allege the estimated dollar amount of any compensatory damages that plaintiffs seek with regard to each purchase agreement, and how that dollar amount was calculated. (See, Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2020

JESUS R. MEDINA V. FAY SERVICING, LLC.

Proc. § 389; Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1100-1101, 1105-1106.) Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 2924(a) is sustained without leave to amend. A private right of action is not available for a violation of the statute. (Lucioni v. Bank of Am. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 150, 158-159.)

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2020

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

These principles have been codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 389.” (In re Marriage of Ramirez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 336, 334, as modified (Aug. 22, 2011), internal quotations and citations omitted.) Far West Farms maintains that Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for failure to name Ashley Taylor as a plaintiff, because as the owner of Bravo, she is an indispensable party. (Memorandum, pp. 4:28-5:8, citing Williamson Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1 “First Amended Complaint,” p. 2:23-26; Ex. 2, K.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL BOYD VS CLARE FOUNDATION, INC.. ET AL.,

Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for joinder is DENIED; the individual defendants will be treated as moving parties in this analysis. Termination Based Claims To prevail on a motion for summary judgment to a FEHA claim for wrongful termination, an employer has the initial burden to either (1) negate an essential element of Plaintiff’s prima facie case or (2) establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff. Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 160.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MATTER OF GEORGE T MORRISON JR. REVOCABLE SURVIVORS TRUST

PREMIER VALLEY INC – a) Defendant Premier Valley Inc’s Demurrer b) Defendant Century 21 Real Estate LLC’s Motion for Joinder to Defendant Premier Valley Inc’s Demurrer – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to March 18, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

JUANA ORTIZ SOLANO AND JESUS ORTIZ PALMA

The Joinder On 12/4/19 mother filed a motion for Joinder seeking to join “Julio Segura;” Julio Segura claims to be the father of minor children, Maria Segura (DOB: 11/03/2014) and Julio Segura (DOB: 12/27/2017). These minor children were born into the home of and continue to live with Claimant Julio Segura and with Juana Ortiz Solano.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

UNIQUE HOMES BY CASPIAN INC VS ERI KROH ET AL

· Exhibit 16: July 1, 2016 Answer to Cross-Complaint · Exhibit 17: Notice of Opposition to Motion for Joinder filed February 9, 2018 in the companion arbitration. · Exhibit 18: Declaration of A. Babak Mirdamadi executed March 14, 2018 filed in the companion arbitration. · Exhibit 19: May 9, 2018 Declaration of Michael J. Baker in Reply to Opposition for Motion for Protective Orders. · Exhibit 20: June 25, 2019 Opposition to Motion to Confirm Award.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

UNIQUE HOMES BY CASPIAN INC VS ERI KROH ET AL

· Exhibit 16: July 1, 2016 Answer to Cross-Complaint · Exhibit 17: Notice of Opposition to Motion for Joinder filed February 9, 2018 in the companion arbitration. · Exhibit 18: Declaration of A. Babak Mirdamadi executed March 14, 2018 filed in the companion arbitration. · Exhibit 19: May 9, 2018 Declaration of Michael J. Baker in Reply to Opposition for Motion for Protective Orders. · Exhibit 20: June 25, 2019 Opposition to Motion to Confirm Award.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

VARGA VS LOMAS SERENAS PROPERTY OWNERS

Thus, the Motion to Join Indispensable Party is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint naming Mrs. Varga as a plaintiff and must file and serve the Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. The Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Party is denied, contingent on Plaintiff filing and serving the Second Amended Complaint on Defendants within 30 days of the date of this Order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE LAKES OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS THE CROSBY ESTATE AT RANCHO SANTA FE MASTER ASSOCIATION

Plaintiff contends Defendant brought the wrong motion and should have filed a motion to compel joinder of these parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 389. However, the failure to join an indispensable party can form the basis for summary judgment. (See, e.g., Save Our Bay, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port District (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 686, as cited in Defendant's reply.) As such, this argument is without merit.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.