What is a Motion for Summary Adjudication?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Summary Adjudication

Recent Rulings on Motion for Summary Adjudication

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

s Motion for Summary Adjudication 3)Defendants University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc.; Division 8, Inc.; and Wirtz Tile & Stone Inc.'s Motion for Summary Adjudication 4)Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Turner Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Against Plaintiffs 1.

  • Hearing

JESSI LEE LOPEZ VS ROBERT DE LA CRUZ ET AL

.: BC663536 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. December 1, 2020 Plaintiff, Jessi Lee Lopez filed this action against Defendants, Robert De La Cruz and ABC Resources, Inc. for damages arising out of a motorcycle v. truck accident. Plaintiff has subsequently added numerous doe defendants in the action. Defendant, ABC Resources, Inc. (“ABC”) filed this motion for summary judgment on 9/17/20, setting it for hearing on 12/1/20.

  • Hearing

ROSE FAY ARFA VS RONEN S. GRACE

Elise argues that it is likely that the DCP would grant a variance, which could moot the motion for summary adjudication. The MSA is currently scheduled for February 11, 2021. While the variance could moot the MSA, the Court finds that issuing a stay for such a short period of time would be a waste of judicial resources and the hearing will occur before any additional briefing is required. Therefore, the motion for a stay is DENIED.

  • Hearing

ASIAN MEDIA VS GILEAD SCIENCES

s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication. Defendant failed to cite to material facts in its separate statement, to adequately support its arguments with respect to the 1st, 2nd and 4th causes of action. Further, there are triable issues of fact on whether DAE Advertising, Inc. acted as an agent for defendant Gilead Science, Inc., sufficient to make defendant responsible for amounts due to plaintiff. (DF 2-6, 8-11.) Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

HEINE VS TARGET

The motion for summary adjudication of Cross-Complainant PMC Concrete Construction, Inc.'s duty to defend against Plaintiff Heine's premises liability claim (Issue No. 1) is GRANTED. Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Defendant The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company to give notice of this Court's ruling.

  • Hearing

NAZARYAN V. FEMTOMETRIX

Motions to Seal Defendant’s unopposed motions to seal Exhibits 2, 3, 10, and 11 to Tyler Rubin’s declaration and Exhibits 14, 15, 22, and 23 to the Appendix filed in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication are granted. Defendant has demonstrated that Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Rubin Declaration and Exhibits 14 and 15 to the Appendix are an analysis of Defendant’s finances and the supporting documents used to create the analysis.

  • Hearing

ALAMEDA SQUARE OWNER LLC VS THE LOS ANGELES WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, LLC

The facts relating to those causes of action are set forth in the written opinions granting the motion for summary adjudication and ruling for plaintiff on the 2nd and 3rd causes of action. LAWPM’s Fifth Cause of Action alleged that it was damaged because Alameda removed a gate referred to as the “8th – Central gate” but failed to pay additional security costs that LAWPM incurred as a result of the relocation of this gate. This cause of action was tried to a jury on October 2-5 and 9, 2018.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

UNI-GLORY DEVELOPMENT, INC. VS. FAIRVIEW EAST LLC

Merits – 4XC – As Defendants makes no further arguments in support of summary adjudication as to the Recovery of Payments to Unlicensed Contractor claim beyond the unlicensed contractor argument discussed by the Court in the previous summary judgment analysis, supra, the Court will deny the motion for summary adjudication as to the 4XC. --- RULING: below, In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order

  • Hearing

JORGE GUZMAN JR VS HECTOR CHAVEZ ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Initially, Defendants contend that: (1) the Motion is based on arguments not addressed in their first motion for summary judgment; and (2) the Motion is based on newly discovered facts. Plaintiff contends that Defendants cannot file a motion for summary adjudication after the start of a bifurcated trial. Issue No.1: Timeliness of the Motion Defendants’ reliance on: (1) Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60; (2) Green v.

  • Hearing

MARGARET KEYES VS LISA ZEDER, ET AL.

In the instant matter, Plaintiff has demonstrated Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff did not personally hire Zeder is at issue and Plaintiff has a right to depose the PMQ and obtain documents that go to the business relationship between the parties, as well as the alter ego allegations at issue in defendant’s pending motion for summary adjudication. As a result, good cause exists to compel L.Z. Design Group to produce the documents requested by the deposition notice, with the exception of Requests 62-64.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES RAMIREZ VS PROLAND MANAGEMENT COMPANY L

As such, Plaintiff contends that her own testimony about hours she worked is sufficient to defeat Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to each wage and hour claim. (Id.) The parties do not dispute that neither party has documentary evidence showing payments made to Plaintiff in June through August 2016. (DSS ¶¶ 41-42.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Therefore, the court DENIES the Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issue No. 2. Issue No. 3: The Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability – Dangerous Condition of Public Property is barred because the County has immunity pursuant to Government Code, section 831.4(b). The court DENIES the Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issue No. 2 for the same reasons given for Issue No. 3.

  • Hearing

BORDEN VS AMAZON.COM, INC

As Amazon notes, it was not apparent that Plaintiff was attempting to press claims related to his hernia until Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication. (See, e.g., Memorandum in Opposition, p. 3:26-4-8 [Amazon did not engage in the interactive process and discuss the possibility of accommodation following an umbilical hernia operation], 17:3-8 [Defendants failed to engage in interactive process in 2015 when Plaintiff disclosed hernia surgery].)

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Due to these deficiencies, any motion for summary adjudication of the affirmative defenses is denied as defective and failing to provide proper notice.

  • Hearing

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

Based on the foregoing, Sovereign’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is denied.

  • Hearing

MOORE V. GATES

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is also denied in its entirety. Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Neal Moore are overruled as to nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. The Court declines to rule on Nos. 3 and 9. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(q).) The Court declines to rule on Defendants’ objections Nos. 1-6 to the declaration of Scott Field. (Id.) The Court also declines to rule on Plaintiffs’ objection to the new evidence that Defendants submitted with their reply brief. (Id.)

  • Hearing

ROSE DIPLOMAT LLC VS MARY NELSON ET AL

On April 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication and concluded that Humphries Investments, Inc. v. Walsh (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 766 controlled the appraisal. On June 5, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, ordered Plaintiff and Defendants to resume arbitration, and stayed the action pending the completion of arbitration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NEFERTARI VS GRUPE MANAGEMENT

Rule 3.1350 of the California Rules of Court sets forth rules regarding the required form and content of a motion for summary adjudication and the separate statement of material facts in support of a motion for summary adjudication. Evidentiary Objections Grupe and the Owner have not filed objections to Bigelow's evidence in support of the Motion.

  • Hearing

LILIAN AMAYA VS VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES INC

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Defendant is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days. The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

  • Hearing

WANG VS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues is denied as to Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and is granted as to Issue No. 4. Both sides’ Requests for Judicial Notice are granted. Both sides’ evidentiary objections are overruled. Defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s new evidence offered on reply is sustained.

  • Hearing

JEREMY M STAGE ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

SCE’s motion for summary adjudication is denied. DISCUSSION RE H&M’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION A. Issues in Summary Adjudication In light of the discussion above regarding SCE’s motion, the Court will limit its discussion of H&M’s motion for summary adjudication on the issues as they pertain to H&M and CTC only. Thus, to the extent H&M seeks summary adjudication on the 1st, 2nd, and 6th causes of action on behalf of SCE, the Court denies the motion as to SCE. B.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MONICA ARELLANO VS EL POLLO LOCO, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

A party may also bring a noticed motion for summary adjudication that one or more causes of action has no merit. (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Id.) A motion for summary adjudication proceeds in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Id. at (f)(2).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NOYEMI KAROYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HYUNDAI OF GLENDALE, LLC A BUSINESS ENTITY EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

for Summary Adjudication.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AFM & SAG-AFTRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION FUND VS STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

On February 28, 2020, Starr filed its first Motion for Summary Adjudication. (the “First MSA”) The First MSA sought an order adjudicating the SAC’s first through third causes of action in favor of Starr. On September 3, 2020, Starr filed its second Motion for Summary Adjudication. (the “Second MSA”) The Second MSA sought an order adjudicating the SAC’s remaining causes of action in favor of Starr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STUART MCCLAVE VS ALI HABIBI ET AL

THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO CAUSES OF ACTION 5 [FRAUD], 7 [IIED] AND THE CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • 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.