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

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

First Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (i.e., Issues Nos. 1-13) “The elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations 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 (

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Plaintiff “requests that the Court award him reasonable attorney fees if the Plaintiff is able to prove the intentional misrepresentation cause of action against the Defendants.” (Supplemental Application, 3:15-16.) Plaintiff has not provided the court with any legal authority in support of this statement. The Declaration of Erick Kim fails to comply with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rules 2.111 and 3.1115.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Plaintiff, though, simply alleges the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and asks the Court to determine the basis of the claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage The elements of a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage include “(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional . . . acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

“Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ only remaining cause of action after demurrer is Plaintiff Anna Shoykhet’s claim for assault, and that claim does not rise to a level warranting punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state a claim for intentional misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress “The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

“The elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations 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.” (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC), alleging: (1) violation of Ralph Civil Rights Act; (2) battery; (3) assault; (4) interference with exercise of civil rights; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligence (premise liability). On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC). However, Plaintiff did not properly move for leave to amend, and the TAC was order stricken on February 21, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

.), alleging: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) violation of California Civil Code section 2924.17; (5) quiet title; and (6) declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. Defendants SPS, U.S. Bank N.A., and NDSC (collectively, Defendants) now move for Plaintiff to be declared a vexatious litigant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

To establish pretext, the employee must demonstrate a triable issue by producing substantial evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were untrue or pretextual, or that the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the employer engaged in intentional discrimination or other unlawful action. (Cucuzza, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1038.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHRISTIAN CARRANZA VS DAVID PHILLIP MEYI, ET AL.

The complaint alleges negligence, gross negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for an automobile collision that occurred on February 8, 2017. On March 6, 2020, Defendant Lyft, Inc., filed a motion to strike pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 435, subdivision (b). A trial setting conference is scheduled for March 24, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant Lyft, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff Ilan Bitton commenced this action and then on December 18, 2019 filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") against Defendants Tyler Thornton, Sunfire Nutrition, LLC, and Greenfield Organix dba Loudpack Farms for (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional interference with business contracts; and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

HILARY VON GERLACH VS. FRG PLAZA, LLC

Negligence is not grounds for punitive damages when intentional conduct is not alleged. Plaintiff argues that the denial of the accommodation due to her disability was malicious and was a conscious disregard of her rights. However, other than the conclusory contention, Plaintiff fails to plead any specific facts to support her claim that the denial was malicious or a conscious disregard of her rights.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

C AYRAPETYAN VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 7, 2018, alleging five causes of action: Negligence (Vicarious Liability) Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention of Employees Assault and Battery Premises Liability Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant City of Glendale.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

STEVEN JONES V. GARY CONWAY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) includes causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) fraud, (4) money had and received, (5) quantum meruit, (6) declaratory relief, and (6) accounting. The parties’ dispute stems from a Contract for Consulting Services (the Contract), which the parties entered into on May 15, 2019. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached the Contract and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the work he performed under the Contract.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleging a single cause of action for Intentional Misrepresentation. On January 29, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer to the TAC, and a Motion to Strike. On April 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to both Motions. On April 24, 2020, Defendants filed Replies to each Motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RUBY VILLESCAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

The tort of false imprisonment requires the “nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege . . . . [Citation.]” (Fermino v. Fedco (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701, 715.) If an arrest is made pursuant to valid process, there is lawful privilege, and consequently there is no false arrest. (See Jackson v. City of San Diego (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 579, 585, 587.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

Fraud and Deceit (2nd Cause of Action) Intentional and negligent misrepresentation actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Goldrich v. National Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 772, 782.) Fraud must be pled with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167,184.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

Fraud and Deceit (2nd Cause of Action) Intentional and negligent misrepresentation actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Goldrich v. National Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 772, 782.) Fraud must be pled with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167,184.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

In each of these cases, the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm.” (Id. at 989-990.) Defendant finally demurs to sixth cause of action arguing that it is barred by the economic loss rule. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraud by omission is not barred by the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff Ilan Bitton commenced this action and then on December 18, 2019 filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") against Defendants Tyler Thornton, Sunfire Nutrition, LLC, and Greenfield Organix dba Loudpack Farms for (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional interference with business contracts; and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JESSICA STEVENS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

In each of these cases, the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm.” (Id. at 989-990.) Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for fraud and deceit on the same grounds it previously demurred to the fourth cause of action. Defendant argues that no relationship exists between the parties that require disclosure. Citing to Bigler-Engler v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BRIDA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

Fraud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the party of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Id., subd. (c)(3).) “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CR CREATIVE SERVICES INC VS HAROLD BRIONES ET AL

with Contractual Relations Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 Misappropriation of Trade Secrets On September 4, 2018, Briones and B&R filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FAXC”) alleging four causes of action: Defamation Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Misappropriation of Trade Secrets.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

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.