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

FOX VS BRIDLEWOOD

Chavin ("Defendants") demurred to the second cause of action asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). Defendants argue that they owed no duty to advise Plaintiffs of any tree removal because the trees removed were not in common areas for which Defendants are responsible. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege any extreme or outrageous conduct, which is a required element of IIED claims.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

SHAUNA PAYNE VS RICHARD BOYD

IIED (2nd cause of action) The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant’s intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) the plaintiff’s injuries were actually and proximately caused by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Vasquez v. Franklin Mgmt. Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 832.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

Eighth Cause of Action (Fraud) – Causes of action for ‘fraud’ ‘concealment’ and ‘intentional misrepresentation’ are all causes of action sounding in “deceit based on intentional misrepresentation.” (Manderville v. PCG&S Group (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 1486, 1498, fn. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIM V. PETS RX, INC., ET AL.

The court explained that “[i]t is not enough that the conduct be intentional and outrageous. It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant was aware.” (McMahon v. Craig, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1516, citing Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal3d 868, 903.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ESTHER EZERZER VS SILVIA CARTER, ET AL.

Where the defendant’s wrongdoing has been intentional and deliberate, and has the character of outrage frequently associated with crime, all but a few courts have permitted the jury to award in the tort action “punitive” or “exemplary” damages. Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

RIDGEROCK TOOLS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS BERGAMON, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Intentional Concealment a. Sufficiency of Allegations “Concealment is a species of fraud or deceit. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOEL CALDERON VS JOHN CHAVES, ET AL.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Punitive Damages Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and move to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

HIPOLITO PAUL CARRANZA VS SPEARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

BACKGROUND This is an action arising from Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, alleging the following causes of action: (1) racial discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to maintain an environment free from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) wrongful termination/constructive discharge.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIEL AVILA VS SMG TAVERNS, INC. DBA IGUANA KELLEY'S

The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) intentional tort for assault and battery, (2) negligence, and (3) premises liability. The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. Defendants now demur to the complaint arguing the first cause of action for intentional tort fails to state a claim against Defendants SMG Tavern, Stefan and Melissa Guillen.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

LEANDRA GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS VICTORIA VU, ET AL.

On March 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Izamal Cadosa and Leandra Gonzalez (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Victoria Vu aka Victoria Venice Vu, VF Developments LLC, and Hannah Howell, alleging: (1) defamation per se; (2) libel and slander; (3) false light; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) elder abuse restraining order. Defendant Hannah Howell (Defendant) now moves for a special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action and on January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed his verified first amended complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for: (1) common law misappropriation; (2) Civil code section 3344 misappropriation; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHAU B. ON VS ABRAHAM EDENS

“The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s complaint alleges no facts, and certainly none that would support a prayer for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

MARK ALAN GREENMAN VS PASSAGES SILVER STRAND LLC ET AL

PARTY: Plaintiff Mark Alan Greenman TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Smith’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 6th cause of action for fraud, 8th cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and 10th cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and OVERRULED as to the 4th cause of action for lack of informed consent, 7th cause of action for concealment, and 9th cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHANTEL RAY, ET AL. VS CREATIVE INVESTMENT GROUP INC., ET AL.

The Motion states that the proposed FAC: (1) substitutes a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (2) adds a claim for punitive damages. The Motion is compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SIRISUP VS. MATSUNO

First Prong: Lawsuit Arises from Act in Further of Right to Petition or Free Speech As an initial matter, the Court notes that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) consists of four causes of action: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); (2) Assault and Battery; (3) Slander Per Se; and (4) Breach of Contract.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

CHERYL MAISEL VS COUNTRY GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Christian Zayek, Rosana Ayoub, and Veronika Obeng for (1) private nuisance; (2) breach of CC&Rs; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligence.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHERYL MAISEL VS COUNTRY GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Christian Zayek, Rosana Ayoub, and Veronika Obeng for (1) private nuisance; (2) breach of CC&Rs; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligence.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BEHROOZ MOHAZZABI VS LORENA BARBA

Spoliation “[T]here is no tort remedy for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the cause of action to which the spoliated evidence is relevant, in cases where . . . the spoliation victim knows or should have known of the alleged spoliation before the trial or other decision on the merits of the underlying action.” (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17-18.) Also, no tort cause of action will lie for intentional third party spoliation of evidence.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DEIDRE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS PAMA V PROPERTIES LP, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

of FEHA; (5) retaliation for taking disability leave in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of FEHA; (7) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (8) breach of express oral contract not to terminate employment without good cause; (9) breach of implied in fact contract not to terminate employment without good cause; (1)) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy; (11) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; and (12) intentional

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MUSTAFA HASSANZAI VS ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. Anthem Blue Cross is a “health care service plan” licensed by the Department of Managed of Health Care.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ACRISURE OF CALIFORNIA LLC VS MARK WOOD

First Cause of Action – Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage “In order to prove a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff has the burden of proving five elements: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) an intentional act by the defendant, designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MAURICIO JACOBS, ET AL. VS ROYAL MOVING & STORAGE 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 party of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)-(3) Punitive damages may be awarded in civil actions for FEHA. Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 221.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA DODOS VS CHUCK AND JACKIE WEISSMAN, DOES 1-25

Second cause of action: intentional infliction of emotional distress The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is seemingly premised on Dodos sending harassing emails and impersonating Jackie to the gas utility company. See cross-complaint ¶ 43.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Personal Injury Action is an unlimited civil case described on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location (LACIV 109) as Motor Vehicle-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death; Personal Injury /Property Damage/Wrongful Death-Uninsured Motorist; Product Liability; Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage; Wrongful Death; or Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death. (Local Rule, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 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 load this page.