What is a Motion for Leave to Amend?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Leave to Amend

Recent Rulings on Motion for Leave to Amend

26-50 of 10000 results

EDWARD CONTRERAS VS UVONNA DENISE ESKRIDGE, ET AL.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages against Defendant is granted with leave to amend. Conclusion and Order Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations is granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within ten (10) days of notice of this order. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: August 12, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

BETTY ZORNIZER VS MARK STEVEN ARONOWICZ, ET AL.

Plaintiff should have filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert the other two causes of action. Therefore, Defendant Herbert C. Rubinstein’s motion to strike is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS STARQUEST MEDIA, L.L.C., ET AL.

Accordingly, the Demurrer to the First, Second, and Third Causes of Action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

ANGELA PARHAM-SMITH, AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ARTHEL SMITH VS COUNTRY VILLA NURSING CENTER, INC, ET AL.

Accordingly, Gotham’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

The demurrer to the third affirmative defense is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. 4.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

VATCHE ORDOGHLIAN VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Course of Proceedings On March 4, 2019, Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC was sustained with leave to amend as to the IIED and fraud causes of action. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint. SI Motion Plaintiff moves to compel WMMC to verify its responses to her Special Interrogatories (SI), Set Two. Plaintiff also moves to compel WMMC to provide further responses to her SI Nos. 75-78, 88, 90-92, 94-95, 97-98, and 101-104. A.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

FLORES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA

The defendant’s general demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend. The special demurrers for uncertainty are overruled. If the plaintiffs request oral argument, Amy Morse is ordered to appear at the hearing on the demurrer and to explain why she persists in relying upon factual assertions that are not found within the four corners of the complaint. The case management conference is continued to 9-28-20.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

CAL WORLD EL MONTE, LLC VS BRIAN LAI, ET AL.

The court will hear from counsel for Plaintiff as to whether leave to amend is requested, and as to which cause(s) of action, and will require an offer of proof if so. Background Plaintiff Cal World El Monte, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: AMCA I, LLC (“AMCA”) was the owner of the commercial property located at 10138 E. Garvey Ave., El Monte, CA 91733 (“Property”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE VS HAMNER PARK ASSOCIATES

Sustained with 30 Days Leave to Amend. Hamner may be able to amend the cross-complaint to distinguish the conduct alleged in the cross-complaint from the direct action. Cross-complainant mentions the taking of a slope easement, drainage easement and maintenance easement in addition to the TCE in its Opposition, but this has to be included in the allegations of the Cross- complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

A. G. VS VAUGHN NEXT CENTURY LEARNING CENTER, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

On 7/2/20, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend. On 7/7/20, this court sustained Defendant’s demurrer with 40 days leave to amend. Based on the court’s 7/7/20 order sustaining Defendant’s demurrer to the 2nd cause of action with leave to amend, Plaintiff’s request to amend to establish an essential element of that cause of action is moot.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The demurrers to the first and second causes of action are sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

LA BONBON BEAUTY VS AVEO INC. DBA AAA SECURITY, ET AL.

Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JILL HAYS VS KALNEL GARDENS LLC

City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65, 82, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to this cause of action without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

CHRISTOPHER GOORIS VS ROBERT WYAR

Due to the Court sustaining the demurrer to the first through fifth causes of action with leave to amend, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action in the complaint is insufficient as that cause of action is based on the first through fifth causes of action. Therefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ demurrer to the sixth cause of action in the complaint with 20 days leave to amend. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

RON HACKER VS HENRY LEVY, ET AL.

Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiff must demonstrate this possibility at the hearing. If he does not, no leave to amend will be given. If leave to amend is not given, or the plaintiff stands by his 3AC, consistent with this ruling, the moving party is to file an Answer to the 3AC or stand by its earlier filed Answer, as the viable Answer in this case on its behalf.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JOCELYNN TAYLOR VS LANA STEVENS

Defendant Lana Stevens’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Discovery Motions In light of the ruling on the Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant’s discovery motions are PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

WEST PALMS INDUSTRY, INC VS WSI VANLINES, INC., ET AL.

Conclusion Plaintiff West Palm Industry, Inc.’s Demurrer to the 5th cause of action for fraud and deceit is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff West Palm Industry, Inc.’s Motion to Strike the request for punitive damages in the First Amended Complaint is DEEMED MOOT. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

BAINS, TRUSTEE, JASWANT SINGH ET AL VS MARY'S GONE CRACKERS, INC., A CORPORATION

Defendant's demurrer to the second cause of action in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs have failed to allege conduct undertaken by Defendant - apart from failure to pay rent in full each month - that prevented Plaintiffs from obtaining the benefits that Plaintiffs were entitled to receive under the contract.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

GUADALUPE GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ VS JEFFREY ALATRISTE, ET AL.

Conclusion and Order Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within ten (10) days of notice of this order. In the alternative, the Court grants the motion to strike without leave to amend. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: August 12, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

STUPPY HAYES VS GEORG F. HESSELBACH, ET AL.

The Court grants Defendants’ motion to strike as to paragraphs 45 (second sentence), 48 (las two sentences) and 57, and as to the prayer for damages (paragraph 81 and prayer for relief, paragraphs 5 and 6), with leave to amend. The Court otherwise denies Defendants’ motion to strike. The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve an amended complaint, if any, within 20 days of the date of this order.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Z.B., ET AL. VS BIRMINGHAM COMMUNITY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL.

Defendant Birmingham contends Plaintiffs should have simply sought leave to amend to add the additional causes of action and plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the initial lawsuit (19STCV17092) on May 16, 2019. In 19STCV17092, there are 14 Plaintiffs who have asserted causes of action for: 1) Act or Omissions of Public Employee Within Scope of Employment (Gov. Code §815.2); 2) Negligence; 4) Assault; and 5) Battery against Defendants Birmingham, Silva, and LAUSD.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GHALY MD VS RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HEALTHPLAN

Leave to amend is denied given the exclusivity stated in section 1312 and the cases interpreting that section.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

LATTIMORE VS VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend for the reasons described below. Unless provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury. (Gov. C. § 815(a).) To state a cause of action against a government entity, every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pled with particularity. (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 792, 802.) The SAC is uncertain. Plaintiff combines the District and City together when describing their duties and roles.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

KATE GELLER VS STRONG ARM GROUP LLC ET AL

The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (internal citations omitted).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

STEVEN H MARCUS VS TAMAR HOUSE

The unopposed demurrer is therefore sustained with 30 days leave to amend. A motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant is set for hearing on December 8, 2020. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  « first    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 gather your results.