Motion for Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Intentional Spoliation

Recent Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Intentional Spoliation

1-25 of 10000 results

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

“Punitive damages are recoverable in those fraud actions involving intentional, but not negligent misrepresentations.” (All. Mortg. Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 1241.) Thus, absent factual allegations of oppression or malice, Plaintiff has no grounds on which to base her punitive damages request. A review of the TAC reveals that the only allegations pertaining to such conduct were the allegations contained within the 2nd cause of action to which Defendants successfully demurred.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Contract) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Tort) Negligent Maintenance of Premises Maintenance of Nuisance Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5) Compel Mediation On November 14, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ROBERT HULL VS WILLIAM G. GILLESPIE, ET AL.

Gillespie, Doug Denhart (“Denhart”), Keller Williams Realty and Does 1-10 for: Professional Negligence Breach of Fiduciary Duty Fraud—Misrepresentation Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein “SATCAL, Inc. dba Keller Williams Realty” was named in lieu of Doe 1. On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Keller Williams Realty, without prejudice. A Case Management Conference is set for October 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

LORI H VS JOSEPH EDWARD BEEZY, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) sexual battery against Defendants, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants, (3) assault against Defendants, (4) negligence against SCPMG, (5) premises liability against SCPMG, and (6) professional negligence against Defendants. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. On December 21, 2017, Plaintiff visited SCPMG with complaints of skin abscesses on her lower back, posterior hair line, and chin as well as a bulge on her right hip.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

K SWISS INTERNATIONAL LTD VS CARTER INTERNATIONAL S A

Here, the allegations of the seventh cause of action in the TAXC are sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

.; (6) tortious interference with contract; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and (8) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

JONES VS. TZEN-WEN

The jury awarded $1,800 in damages for fraud and $10,000 in damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 164.) The difference in these two figures makes clear that the jury did not award emotional distress damages for fraud, but for a different and separate tort. Thus, the court’s affirmance of the jury’s award did not amount to approval of an award of emotional distress for fraud. (See id. at 173-74.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SCHON VS. VALORY

SCHON, JONATHAN CAIN FRIGA * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion) filed by cross-defendants Schon and Cain, seeking to strike the first and second causes of action (intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage) in the Second Amended Cross- Complaint of Valory. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

SCHON VS. VALORY

The insurer sought a declaration that the cause of the derailment was intentional acts by the insured’s minor child and two other minors which would make the accident outside the scope of the policy coverage. (Id. at 672, 674.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JONES VS. TZEN-WEN

Trespass and Nuisance To establish trespass, plaintiffs must prove an intentional, or at least a negligent, entry onto their property. (See CACI 2000, 2004; Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 258.) Likewise, plaintiffs must prove that defendants were at least negligent to establish liability for nuisance, unless the nuisance was caused by an ultrahazardous activity or some other circumstance that supports strict liability. (See Lussier v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

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

(3) "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. In the Court’s prior ruling on the motion to strike the request for punitive damages, the Court found that the SAC did not adequately pleads sufficient facts to support punitive damages against Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SYLVA BEDROSIAN VS RAHMATOLLA KHARGHEHPOUSH

With respect to the ninth cause of action, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to allege fraud and intentional deceit with the requisite specificity. In a conclusory fashion, the Complaint alleges that “[a]t the time the parties entered into the written lease agreement DEFENDANTS assured PLAINTIFF that the RESIDENCE was habitable and lawful,” but that this representation was false. (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 87.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOSE CARDOS SOBERANIS, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 200, INCLUSIVE

Conclusory allegations that defendant’s conduct was intentional, willful, or fraudulent are insufficient. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872; see also Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.) Plaintiffs request punitive damages in their second through fourth causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

OLSON, ET AL. V. CHEN, ET AL.

Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation (Third and Fourth Causes of Action Defendants argue that these causes of action are not pled with specificity. In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. Thus the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JOEL PASCHAL VS KOLLIDER INDUSTRIES LLC ET AL

Issue No. 1: Fourth Cause of Action (Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations) “The elements of an action for tortious interference are ‘ “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” ’ ” (Han v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL JUDGE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The decision to use the canine, and to not stop the attack, are intentional acts by Deputy Barragan, not Pluto, which may form the basis of a claim for battery. Also, according to Plaintiff, this incident did not occur in a “split second,” as argued by Defendants but rather lasted longer than 30 to 40 seconds. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The resolution of this case depends on whether one believes the deputies’ accounts, or the Plaintiff’s account, of what happened on May 11, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

Code § 52.4 (by Brice against Mims); (11) Sexual Battery (by Brice against Mims); (12) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (by Brice against Mims); and (13) Negligent Hiring/Training/Retention/Supervision in Violation of Gov. Code § 815.2 (by Brice against County and City). PRESENTATION: On March 13, 2020, the Court granted City's motion to stay action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

HOWDY S KABRINS ET AL VS DIEGO DOUGHERTY NOVELLA

When, as in this case, intentional torts are alleged, “[a] forum State's exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.” (Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 286.) “The plaintiff must come forward with affidavits and other competent evidence to carry this burden and cannot simply rely on allegations in an unverified complaint. (Buchanan v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ANNA BENEDETTI, ET AL. VS JOHNNY MIMS, ET AL.

Code § 52.4 (by Brice against Mims); (11) Sexual Battery (by Brice against Mims); (12) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (by Brice against Mims); and (13) Negligent Hiring/Training/Retention/Supervision in Violation of Gov. Code § 815.2 (by Brice against County and City). PRESENTATION: On March 13, 2020, the Court granted City's motion to stay action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MATEOS VS. IEC CORPORATION WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CORPORATION

His theory of the case is that intentional understaffing meant he had to work through breaks to meet his deadlines. As noted above, the Court has sustained IEC’s objections to portions of his declaration testimony to this effect on sham declaration grounds because it directly contradicts admissions made at his deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

ALFRED L. CARR VS LESLIE ANNE CALDWELL

(c) A member's duty of care to a limited liability company and the other members in the conduct and winding up of the activities of the limited liability company is limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHAEL JUDGE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The decision to use the canine, and to not stop the attack, are intentional acts by Deputy Barragan, not Pluto, which may form the basis of a claim for battery. Also, according to Plaintiff, this incident did not occur in a “split second,” as argued by Defendants but rather lasted at least 30 to 40 seconds. CONCLUSION AND ORDER The resolution of this case depends on whether one believes the deputies’ accounts, or the Plaintiff’s account, of what happened on May 11, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JP COHEN LLC VS RYAN A CHAICHI

bi-monthly basis in violation of Labor Code, (9) failing to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code, (10) failing to pay overtime in violation of Labor Code, (11) disability harassment in violation of FEHA, (12) requiring signing of illegal agreement before releasing funds in violation of Labor Code, (13) retaliating for opposing practices in violation of FEHA, (14) retaliating for engaging in protected activities in violation of section 98.6, (15) failure to prevent DHR in violation of Government Code, (16) intentional

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

YUKIO TAIRA VS HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

On July 11, 2019, during the pendency of this action in federal court, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which alleged one cause of action for intentional misrepresentation against moving defendant, Matrix Absence Management. (“Matrix”) On February 18, 2020, the case was remanded to this court. On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). The operative TAC still alleges one cause of action for intentional misrepresentation against Matrix.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GEORGE LEWIS MARRERO VS RON BURNS, ET AL.

Morales on behalf of the Morales Family Trust alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence, (2) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Private Nuisance- Permanent, (5) Premises Liability, (6) Trespass, (7) Constructive Eviction, (8) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4, (9) Unfair Business Practice, and (10) Contractual and Tortious Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • 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.