Motion Types Legal Issues

What is a Motion for Sanctions?

Most Useful Motion for Sanctions – General Examples

Recent Examples of Motion for Sanctions – General

1-25 of 500 results

STAN KANAROWSKI V. BRUKER NANO, INC.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Requests for Admissions/Sanctions; Compel Requests for Inspection of Documents/Set One/Sanctions; Compel Responses to Interrogatories/Set One/Sanctions Tentative

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

SHELDON WIDUCH VS ANCHETA HOLDINGS LLC,, ET AL.

Sheldon Widuch v. Ancheta Holdings, LLC, et al. MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST LAURA ANCHETA, ET AL, PURSUANT TO CCP SECTIONS 2023.010 & 2030.090 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sheldon Widuch RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Ancheta Holdings, LLC, Laura Ancheta, trustee of the...

...rent. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Sheldon Widuch’s motion to deem RFAs admitted is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also DENIED. DISCUSSION: Motion To Deem RFAs Admitted When a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to respond, the party propounding the requests may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in th...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

LOUIS METOYER VS MARJORIE ANNE GUZMAN, ET AL.

Louis Metoyer v. Marjorie Anne Guzman, et al. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF LOUIS METOYER MOVING PARTY: Defendant Marjorie Anne Guzman RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Louis Metoyer STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: This is a personal i...

...RULING: Defendant Marjorie Anne Guzman’s motion to compel the deposition of Louis Metoyer is GRANTED. The deposition is to take place within 14 days of the date of this order. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,055.00 against both Plaintiff Louis Metoyer and his counsel, the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, jointly and severally. Sanctions to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within 3...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.

...Defendant Allan Law Group, P.C. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses is DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Although the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons stated below, the Court believes that Defense counsel is playing games by its blanket objections to relevant discovery and by not providing answers to legitimate interrogatories. The C...

...the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff on such a further motion, the Court will consider awarding plaintiff sanctions. Hopefully, the parties will be able to meet-and-confer to avoid the need for further motions on this issue. BACKGROUND: On February 26, 2019 Plaintiff Claire Levine, in propria persona, commenced this action. On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defen...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

MICHAEL STITH VS MARIA ESTHER CERVANTES

...Tuesday, January 21, 2020 NOTICE: See below[1] RE: Stith v. Cervantes, et al. (KC069427) ______________________________________________________________________________ Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes’ MOTION FOR ORDER THAT REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 1/9/20, 3:31 p.m.; due 1/7/20) Tentative Ruling Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes’ unopposed Motion ...

...2033.280(b), the court orders that the truth of the matters and the genuineness of all documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Cervantes to Plaintiff be deemed admitted. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $61.65 and payable within 30 days. Background Plaintiff Michael Stith (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff and Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes (“Cervantes”) were...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

...Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $960.00 against Defendant Jay Min Chen and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, to be paid within 30 days of this order. (2) The motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED as to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1-4, 11-16, 18, 20-42, and 44, and DENIED as to Request for Production of D...

...order. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,410 against Defendant Jay Min Chen, to be paid within 30 days of this order. (3) At the request of the moving party, the motion for compliance with the subpoena duces tecum is CONTINUED to March ___________. Plaintiff is ordered to give proper notice regarding each motion. Background On February 20, 2019, Plaintiff Carrien Qia...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

LARRY SPITCAUFSKY, TRUSTEE OF THE LARRY SPITCAUFSKY FAMILY TRUST UTA 01/19/ 1988, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND AS THE AUTHORIZED VS DAVID CHANG, ET AL.

...01/19/1988 (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to compel responses from Defendants David Chang, California Owl, Inc., West Covina Wings, LLC (“Defendants”) for Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one. In the same motion, he also requests an order deeming the Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, to be deemed admitted. On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff served on Defendants the discovery requests, such that responses ...

...responses to the FROG is granted pursuant to CCP §2030.290. Defendants are ordered to provide verified responses to the FROG, without objections, within 20 days of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted is granted, pursuant to CCP §2033.280. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants only. The requests are granted in a reasonable amount of $660 (= a reason...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

DEANNA AIVAZIAN VS. SARKIS TERSAKIAN ET AL

deanna aivazian, Plaintiff, v. sarkis tersakian, et al., Defendants. Case No.: EC066481 Hearing Date: February 21, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel; motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in request for admissions admitted BACKGROUND A. Allegations This case arises from Plaintiff Deanna Aivazian's (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Sarkis T...

...statute CCP §789.3; and (8) NIED. B. Discovery Motions on Calendar and Relevant Background On January 21, 2020, Defendants Brook Fain and Napa filed two discovery motions against Plaintiff: (1) a motion to compel initial responses to form interrogatories, set one (“FROG”), special interrogatories, set one (“SROG”), and requests for production of documents, set one (“RPD”); and (2) motion to deem the ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

ROBERT S. SHUMAKE LIVING TRUST 1994 VS JASON Q. WILSON TRUST DATED OCTOBER 18, 2007 ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: (4) Motions to Compel TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the motions of defendant Louis Armstrong and Associates, LLC, to compel further responses to written discovery from plaintiff Robert S. Shumake Living Trust 1994 are continued to March 27, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. Ba...

...Shumake Trust (Shumake Trust). (E.g., Sandler decl. re special interrogatories, ¶ 2.) On November 12, 2019, counsel for Shumake Trust, attorney Rafael Bernardino, Hobson, Bernardino & Davis LLP, filed his motion to be relieved as counsel. On November 25, 2019, following the granting of extensions, Shumake Trust served responses to the discovery in the form of objections. (E.g., Sandler decl. re special inter...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. DEVIN G BEERS

The OSC for sanctions/dismissal for failure to file judgment is continued from 2/21/20, to 4/21/20, at 8:15 am in Dept. 22B. A Motion to Change Venue is scheduled for hearing on 3/2/20.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

ANDERSON VS FARMERS INSURANCE

The Mandatory Appearance CMC/OSC re sanctions/dismissal failure to file proof of service/default is continued from 2/21/20, to 4/21/20, at 8:15 am in Dept. 22B. A Motion for Leave to Amend is scheduled for hearing on 3/27/20. Notice to be provide...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

WASHINGTON VS PETTY

...Special Interrogatories is granted. Plaintiff Gillen Washington is ordered to serve verified responses to the special interrogatories, without objections, within 15 days. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff Gillen Washington is granted in the amount of $844.00, payable within 30 days. Defendant is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.

...Bitton Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED as to the first and third causes of action. Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the second cause of action. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. BACKGROUND: This case concerns the breach of an agreement to form a new business entity for the marketing and sale of non-psychotropic cannabidiol-based products (“CBD Products”). On Oct...

...Cal.App.4th 72, 78.) B. Discussion 1. Meet and Confer and Sanctions Plaintiff argues that “this Court should not hear Moving Defendants’ demurrer, and order Moving Defendants’ to show cause as to why sanctions in the amount of $2,362.50 should not be imposed pursuant to Rule 2.30(b) of the California Rules of Court (‘CRC’), as a result of Moving Defendants’ and their counsel’s failure and refusal to properl...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

STACEY WILLIAMS, ET AL. VS SELECT PHYSICAL THERAPY, ET AL.

...RFAs, set two on Plaintiffs on 9/23/19. On 12/16/19, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the outstanding discovery, deeming the RFAs admitted, and also imposing sanctions; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions. Pu...

... sanctions. See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 490-91. Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time for three reasons. First, the Court previously imposed monetary sanctions. Second, a brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a termin...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

IPFS CORP VS CENTERPOINTE INSURANCE

... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...

...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

IPFS CORP VS CENTERPOINTE INSURANCE

... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...

...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

IPFS CORP VS CENTERPOINTE INSURANCE

... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...

...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

IPFS CORP VS CENTERPOINTE INSURANCE

... Motion Procedures: The law and motion calendar in Courtroom 20 before Judge Matthew P. Guasco starts promptly at 8:30 a.m. Ex parte applications will be heard at the same time as matters on the law and motion calendar. Parties appearing by Court Call must check in with the Judicial Assistant by 8:20 a.m. No notice of intent to appear is required. Parties wishing to submit on the tentative decision must so ...

...("Farmer") (alternatively, "defendants"): (1) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set No. 1), and for $2,520 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (2) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set No. 1), and for $2,625 in Monetary Sanctions (Opposed); (3) Motion to Compel Centerpointe's Further Respo...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

DOUGLAS HART VS ALTA VISTA GARDENS, INC., ET AL.

Motion for Sanctions Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff Douglas Hart (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Alta Vis...

...Defendant/Cross-Defendant Alta Vista Gardens, Inc.’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production (Both Set One). On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Trial is set for December 7, 2020. PARTY’S REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to order either: (1) an issue sanction establishing Def...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

ARSHA CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CEDARWOOD CAPITAL PARTNERS LA CIENGA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

...2025.450) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC To Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One and Request for Sanctions is DENIED. THE HEARING ON THE REMAINING REQUESTS IN THE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 20, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR T...

...ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE MOTIONS BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Plaintiff Arsha Corporation’s Motion For Order Compelling Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Arsha Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, open book account, fraud, and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien against Defendant Cedarwo...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

LESLIE BLAKENEY VS SERGIO GARCIA

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply p...

...entrustment. On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to add a cause of action for fraud/intentional misrepresentation. On January 3, 2020, Defendants Sergio Garcia and Manuela T. Garcia filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Pro...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

CASHCALL, INC. VS LIZETT IBARRA

...tentative ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 19 February 2020. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO FORM INTERROGATORIES (LIMITED CIVIL CASES), SET ONE; SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE I. Statement of ...

...Procedure, §§ 2030.260(a); 2031.260(a).) Moving party plaintiff does not seem to be pursuing the request for admissions at this time. The court must impose monetary sanctions against the losing party on a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production unless it finds that the offending party acted with substantial justification This Department intends to comply with the time requir...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

JAMES LEWALLEN, ET AL. VS DOES 1-100

...v. Does 1 through 100 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF THIRD-PARTY WITNESS AXIALL CORPORATION AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SPECTRA-TONE PAINT AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $2510.00 AGAINST AXIALL CORPORATION AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD POLSINELLI LLP AND SUSAN GILEFSKY MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs James Lewallen and Carole Lewallen RESPONDING PARTY(S): Non-Party Axiall C...

...Carole Lewallen’s motion to compel the deposition of third-party witness Axiall Corporation and its production of records is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. Axiall’s cross-request for sanctions is also DENIED. DISCUSSION: Motion To Compel Deposition and Production of Records Meet and Confer The Declaration of Attorney Senami Craft reflects that she did attempt to meet and confer with Axi...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

WIBERG V. JOHNSON

...ruling must call Department 20 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM on 19 February 2020. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and Counsel. ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO BE ADMITTED; COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND ORDERING GARY JOHNSON AND CONNIE BLUCK TO APPEAR FOR ...

...January 2020, counsel for plaintiffs emailed his attorney to remind him of the deposition date. Mr. Dahliwal stated that Mr. Johnson was probably too busy to appear. No opposition has been filed to this motion. II. Analysis. By failing to respond to the request for admissions, defendants have waived any objections thereto. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776 (citing Code of Civil P...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

GARIBAY, ARNULFO VS QUETZAL CORPORATION

a) Defendants' Motion to Compel Responses to Supplemental Discovery Requests and for Monetary Sanctions HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendants' Motion for Imposition of Issue Sanctions, Evidence Sanctions, or Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff Arnulfo Garibay and for Monetary Sanctions HEARING REQUIRED....

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

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