What is a Motion for Sanctions for Negligent Spoliation?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Negligent Spoliation

Recent Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Negligent Spoliation

1-25 of 10000 results

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Punitive Damages Defendants move to strike punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff has not plead oppressive or malicious conduct into the TAC, and that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation is defective as elaborated in the concurrent demurrer. In light of the demurrer, the only remaining cause of action is the 1st cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. “Punitive damages are recoverable in those fraud actions involving intentional, but not negligent misrepresentations.” (All.

  • 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

JENNIFER CHAN VS GREAT EASTERN COMPANY

(“CRRI”) and Does 1-25 for: Wrongful Foreclosure Negligent Loan Servicing Trial is set for March 8, 2021. Discussion Notice The motion was filed on July 13, 2020; the proof of service accompanying the motion, however, is deficient, in that it pertains to a “Notice of Pending Action” and indicates a September 11, 2018 service date (but with a July 8, 2020 execution date).

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

LORI H VS JOSEPH EDWARD BEEZY, ET AL.

“The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” (Lattimore v. Dickey (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 968.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

K SWISS INTERNATIONAL LTD VS CARTER INTERNATIONAL S A

BACKGROUND Cross-Complainant filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SAXC”) against Cross-Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of written contracts; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) breach of implied warranty of fitness; (5) fraud; (6) unfair competition; (7) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (8) negligent interference with prospective business advantage.

  • 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

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

(Western States Petroleum Assn v. 3 DOI’s rejection of SCIF’s proposed language in paragraph two of the Settlement Agreement, as set forth in the e-mail correspondence included in DOI’s Exhibit Q, significantly undermines SCIF’s argument that it was the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated by DOI in order to secure the Settlement Agreement, was coerced into the settlement agreement (SAP, ¶ 50), or that DOI was “grossly negligent” in its communications. (Reply, at p. 3:15-20.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

JONES VS. TZEN-WEN

Homefed Bank (1991) 6 Cal.App.4th 793, 799-800 (negligent misrepresentation); Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 555-56 (negligence.).) Civil Code § 3343 lists the damages that are recoverable by a person defrauded in the purchase of real property. The list does not include emotional distress damages. (Sierra Nat. Bank v. Brown (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 98, 103.) Plaintiffs cite Godfrey v.

  • 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

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

DEMETRIO HARO, ET AL. VS C&P PROPERTIES #1, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Plaintiffs complaint was filed on January 8, 2020, and the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on July 29, 2020, alleging four (4) causes of action sounding in: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Negligent Maintenance of Premises; (3) Nuisance; and (4) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment. PRESENTATION: Defendant filed the motion to strike on September 01, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition on September 16, 2020, and Defendant filed a reply on September 18, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

Essentially, the evidence showed [the doctor] had a character trait of being an unskilled, incompetent and negligent physician and surgeon.” Conversely here, the information sought by the subpoenas is not necessarily character evidence because it may prove admissible for other purposes such as impeachment and motive. Moreover, Hinson does not impact Pugh. As noted ante, Pugh found that character is at issue in a wrongful discharge case where the employer claims that the employee was unfit for the job.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RODRIGUEZ VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA

Specifically, moving party presents evidence showing that plaintiff cannot establish: (1) the negligent or wrongful conduct of defendant’s employee acting within the scope of his or her employment created a dangerous condition, or (2) defendant had notice of the dangerous condition for a long enough time to have protected against it. (Gov’t Code 835.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

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

Negligent Misrepresentation (Fifth Cause of Action) Defendants argue that this claim is also not pled with specificity. The court again agrees. Negligent misrepresentation is a separate and distinct tort, a species of the tort of deceit. ‘Where the defendant makes false statements, honestly believing that they are true, but without reasonable ground for such belief, he may be liable for negligent misrepresentation, a form of deceit. (CACI no. 1903.)

  • 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

SOCORRO COBARRUVIAS VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

Plaintiff alleges that Sherrie had a duty to protect Plaintiff from this type of assault, was negligent, and as a result Plaintiff was injured. Defendant HAGAP now moves for summary judgment. Motion for Summary Judgment Moving Argument HAGAP asserts that there was no duty to prevent the alleged assault because HAGAP had no notice or knowledge rendering it foreseeable to HAGAP that a third-party was likely to commit a sexual assault on a person under HAGAP’s supervision.

  • 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

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Both Plaintiffs allege that as a result of BMW’s negligent design and Rusnak/Westlake’s negligent maintenance, Yvonne Yeong Choi’s BMW i3 caught on fire while it was parked in her garage and this resulted in substantial property damage to her condominium and adjacent condominiums. Rusnak/Westlake contends that Ms. Yeong breached a duty of care when she smelled a gasoline odor, reported the condition to Rusnak/Westlake, and parked her vehicle in her garage for the night.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIYAM KARAPETYAN, ET AL. VS AZMI W ATIYA, ET AL.

DISCUSSION The elements of medical malpractice are: “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.” (Simmons v. West Covina Medical Clinic (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 696, 701-702 [citations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAMONE DANIEL, ET AL. VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.

With regard to the 11th and 12th causes of action (false arrest and false imprisonment); 18th and 19th causes of action (battery and assault); 26th and 27th causes of action (gross negligence and negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employee); and 28th cause of action (IIED), upon amendment, Plaintiff should allege facts, if any, that cure the timeliness issues if Plaintiff seeks to move forward with these causes of action against Walmart.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTIAN DIAZ VS CITY OF MONTEREY PATK, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant the City of Monterey Park owns or controls the first light, that defendant California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”) owns or controls the second light, and that defendant Southern California Edison (“Edison”) exercised control, or operated or maintained the two street lights, and that defendant Edison was negligent in controlling, operating or maintaining the street lights, or, alternatively, in failing to inform another entity, including the City and CalTrans, to

  • 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

KEVIN TASHMAN VS 200 N FAIR OAKS LLC ET AL

“If an independent contractor, no matter how carefully selected, is employed [by the possessor of land] to [maintain property], the possessor is answerable for harm caused by the negligent failure of his contractor to put or maintain the buildings and structures in reasonably safe condition[.]” (Srithong, 23 Cal.App.4th at 726 [quoting Brown, 23 Cal.2d at 260 (internal quotations omitted)].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

AMOS ZHANG , ET AL. VS JACK KITTS, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, negligent hiring/training/retention, and loss of consortium. On 9/19/19, Plaintiffs purportedly served Defendant, Amramp, Inc. by substituted service on a “John Doe” at 1619 ½ W. 134th Street, Gardena, CA 90249-2013. Motion, Exhibit. B. The Court’s file reflects that on 11/7/19, the Court entered default against Defendant Amramp, Inc. Defendant filed this motion on 5/6/20 to vacate entry of default.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JP COHEN LLC VS RYAN A CHAICHI

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 infliction of emotional distress, (17) negligence, (18) negligent

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 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.