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

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

On February 20, 2019, He filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Chen, Hung and XTR, Nominal Defendant Globalinks and Does 1-30 for: Conversion Unauthorized Transfer of Corporate Assets Breach of Fiduciary Duty Embezzlement Fraud and Concealment Negligent Misrepresentation and Concealment Unjust Enrichment Removal of Director Corp Code § 304 Accounting Declaratory Relief Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JASUE SUREMA CORDON GALVEZ VS DAVID JARRAHIAN

DISCUSSION “[A] purported claim for negligent infliction is in actuality not a tort separate and apart from the tort of negligence . . . .” (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 796, fn. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to operate his vehicle with due care, and thereby caused injuries to Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

AHMED HIJAZI ET AL VS ALVARO ECHEVERRY ET AL

Defendant Echeverry Defendant Echeverry argues that he was not negligent in the underlying collision. Defendant Echeverry relies on his own declaration, in which he states that he did not collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Declaration of Alvaro Vergara Echeverry, ¶¶ 19-20.) Defendant Echeverry states that Plaintiff rear-ended him after he safely switched lanes. (Id., ¶¶ 12-17.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

YAIR MAOR DABUSH, AN INDIVIDUAL VS KENNETH RUSSELL PARGA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The Court grants the motion with respect to allegations of “entrustment,” since there is no basis to assert a claim for negligent entrustment against Defendant. (Govt. Code, § 815(a); see Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.) “[D]irect tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

DO WOO KIM, ET AL. VS HYUN JONG HAN, ET AL.

Kim & Associates, a Professional Law Corporation, setting forth claims for 1) private nuisance; 2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; 3) declaratory relief; 4) conversion; 5) breach of fiduciary duty; 6) constructive fraud; 7) civil conspiracy; 8) constructive trust; 9) accounting; and 10) TRO and preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

Thus, the conduct at issue here, the alleged negligent treatment of Kitty, cannot give rise to a cognizable claim for NIED. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. IV.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ESTHER EZERZER VS SILVIA CARTER, ET AL.

Defendants UBER, RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA LLC and Does 1-50 were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the APP in the provision of prearranged transportation services in such a manner so as to lead to DRIVERS, including CARTER, to be distracted and/or inattentive, while driving. 47.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

GREGORY BARAM, ET AL. VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(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. [Citations.]” (Galvez v. Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JUDI BEDDOW, ET AL. VS ALTEC, INC.,, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Negligence; Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision/Training; Loss of Consortium; and NIED – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. On January 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) substituting Cupertino Electric, Inc. (“Cupertino”) as Doe 1. On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Altec, Inc.; Altec Industries, Inc.; and Global Rental Co., Inc. without prejudice, leaving Defendants Cupertino and Barnes.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

LUZ BELTRAN, ET AL. VS NICHOLAS SCHWARTZ, ET AL.

On December 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Schwartz, Platinum and Does 1-100 for: Fraud and Deceit Negligence/Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Fraud in the Inducement On February 27, 2020, Schwartz’s and Platinum’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for December 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SABINA VALENCIA VS HECTOR FRIAS ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Fraud; Negligent Misrepresentation; Quiet Title; and Money Had and Received. On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Hector Frias without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOEL CALDERON VS JOHN CHAVES, ET AL.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Defendants demur to the third cause of action, for negligent infliction of emotional distress. “[A] purported claim for negligent infliction is in actuality not a tort separate and apart from the tort of negligence . . . .” (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 796, fn. 4.) Plaintiff has alleged that John Chaves failed to operate his vehicle with due care, causing injuries to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

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

The complaint alleges in conclusory fashion, “Plaintiff seeks punitive damages on the negligent bases that Defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. … Plaintiff believes Defendant acted with oppression, fraud and/or malice, and further believes Defendants malicious acts are punishable by the assessment of punitive damages as a party that intentionally performed an act from which he knew, or should have

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

RICHARD QUINONES VS JE GROUP INCORPORATED, ET AL.

.; (3) fraud and deceit; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5) violation of Vehicle Code § 11711 – as to Hudson Insurance Company only. On September 5, 2019, default was entered as to Defendant JE Group. On September 9, 2019, Defendant JE Group filed an answer. On October 29, 2019, pursuant to a stipulation from the parties, the Court set aside the default entered against Defendant JE Group and deemed its answer filed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANDRES ASCENCIO, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Andres Ascencio and Luis Saul Ascencio commenced this lemon law action against Defendants FCA US LLC and Van Nuys Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram for (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code section 1739.2; (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) negligent repair.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PIERRE HAUSS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS PAUL MIALLOVICH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent in not restraining the dog and allowing the dog to roam freely. (Complaint, ¶¶ 18-23.) These allegations are sufficient for pleading purposes. Conclusion and Order Defendants’ demurrer is overruled. Defendants shall file an answer within statutory time periods. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: December 3, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

YOLANDA MAYORGA VS ANTHONY JOSEPH TOLEDO

However, Plaintiff alleges nothing suggesting that Defendants were negligent. Plaintiff alleges that she believes Defendants are “liable in part or in whole for damages from the Accident that was incurred by Plaintiff.” (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 17.) This is a legal conclusion based upon Plaintiff’s belief, and not a fact.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

MARK ALAN GREENMAN VS PASSAGES SILVER STRAND LLC ET AL

Defendant does not make any arguments in reply as to this cause of action. 6th cause of action for fraud and 8th cause of action for negligent misrepresentation—SUSTAIN WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The 6th cause of action for fraud and 8th cause of action for negligent misrepresentation fail to allege any affirmative misrepresentations to Plaintiff upon which Plaintiff relied to his detriment.

  • 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

GATLIN VS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

On June 5, 2020, his parents, Edward Gatlin and Clarissa Sims, presented a government claim to the County alleging it failed to provide adequate care, monitoring, or supervision and was negligent in other ways. The claim suggests state law claims for negligence, wrongful death, a survival cause of action, and federal claims for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1942. Only the state law claims are required to be preceded by a government claim.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

LOHMANN VS. SAFEWAY INC., ET A

The purchaser sought damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The purchaser claimed she was a direct victim of the manufacture’s failure to use due care in the design and manufacture of her vehicle's head protection system.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

RODRIGUES VS WOODSON

A negligent skateboarder performing tricks on a public sidewalk should owe a duty of ordinary care to a pedestrian having no connection to him or his sport, who is simply using the sidewalk to get from one place to another. (See Childs, supra.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

To state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against Defendants, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) Liu negligently operated a vehicle owned by Defendants; (2) Defendants knew or should have known that Liu was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle; (3) Defendants permitted Liu to use the vehicle anyway; and (4) Liu’s incompetence or unfitness harmed Plaintiff. (Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 853, 863-864.) Defendants argue that they did not permit Liu to use the vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

BEHROOZ MOHAZZABI VS LORENA BARBA

Likewise, “[a] tort cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence cannot be maintained.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1401.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SALOMON CARRILLO OXLAJ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF PASADENA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Government Code section 835 states: “Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.