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

    Apr 25, 2026

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Defendant Emanate Health fka Citrus Valley Health Partners Inc.’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES Responding Party: Plaintiff, Citrus Obstetrics & Gynecology Medical Associates, Inc. 2. Defendant Emanate Health fka Citrus Valley Health Partners Inc.’s MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS FILED BY PLAINTIFF IN OPPOSITION TO EMANATE HEALTH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 3/5/20, 12:45 p.m.; due 3/4/20) Tentative Ruling 1.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GARY MADDOCK ET AL VS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO

Issue No.1: Procedural Defects California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b) says that “[i]f made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication may make reference to the same evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

On October 21, 2019, the court summarily denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication in its entirety as against Zhigang Yang, on the basis that the complaint, inter alia, was devoid of alter ego allegations directed against Doe defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Otherwise, the motion for summary adjudication will have to be continued further to ensure proper notice to all parties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MICHELLE MANNING VS TODD SMITH, ET AL.

On February 10, 2020 the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the third cause of action for breach of contract. The FAC alleges that Plaintiff and Claimant Kighla Manning (hereinafter “Claimaint”), Plaintiff’s daughter, were subject to harassment, discrimination, housing violations, and breach of the lease agreement. On April 24, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Expedited Petition to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minor without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

AZZE VS. WONG

Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is granted in part and denied in part. Background On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff Badr Sanane Azze entered into a commercial Lease for property located at 134 East 10th St. in Pittsburg, with the owners, Defendants Tony and Yvonne Wong. The Lease term was five years with an option to renew, provided Plaintiff gave written notice no later than 90 days before expiration of the lease. Plaintiff did not exercise the option in writing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

LIN VS. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC

The Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Issues Nos. 4 & 8. The Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 9. All Objections to Evidence are Overruled. Plaintiff’s Request to Take Judicial Notice of Edwards’ Incentive Plan is DENIED. Issue No. 1: The First Cause of Action for Association Disability Discrimination failed, because the evidence does not establish the prima facie case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

THE FAIRMONT APARTMENTS LLC ET AL VS DADSON WASHER SERVICE I

CONCLUSION The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NABIL MAMKAGH VS CAMERON BRIGGS ET AL

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Defendants are ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

MONICA LOPEZ VS CENERGY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, LLC

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Introduction On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff Monica Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against, inter alia, Cenergy International Services, LLC (“Defendant”), asserting the following causes of action: Cause of Action #1: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Cause of Action #2: Retaliation Cause of Action #3: Breach of Contract Cause of Action #5: Intentional Misrepresentation

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

COMERICA BANK VS. CENTRALBANC MORTGAGE

Plaintiff has not explained what newly discovered facts or circumstances exist here such that Plaintiff should be permitted to re-raise arguments it lost in the prior motion for summary adjudication. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is denied. In addition, the motion for summary adjudication as to causes of action one and two is based on the issues that were raised in the first motion for summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

GOLDEN STATE PHARMACEUTICALS LLC VS BETTY T YEE

A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

PREFERRED BANK VS PREVENTION, LLC

As Defendant failed to provide a material opposition to the claim, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS 38700 10TH STREET EAST, LLC, ET AL.

CSE’s motion for summary adjudication of its third cause of action is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

“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., emphasis added.) Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

LORETTA LOTITO VS CARL LOTITO, ET AL.

Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1050, 1052 [holding that the trial court did not err in hearing the plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication before the defendants had filed an answer].) Because Defendant has not rebutted Plaintiff’s prima facie case, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 1, the sole issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

TUAZON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend was to add the fraud causes of action and Defendant’s demurrer, motion to strike, and motion for summary adjudication were brought solely against Plaintiff’s fraud claim. The time spent filing the motion for leave to amend, opposing the motions, etc., (65.6 hours or $14,752.50) is apportionable and is not recoverable. The Court grants the lodestar amount reduced to $70,335. Plaintiffs request a multiplier of 0.5 of the total fee award.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

SANTA BARBARA INLAND & COASTAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

On November 26, 2019, the Court granted City’s motion for summary adjudication of the seventh cause of action in the first amended complaint and denied the motion in all other respects, including as to the first, second, and third causes of action. Motion City moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the first, second, and part of the third causes of action for declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

RANDY L. HOFF, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS INC

By such time, the parties are to provide a status report to the Court regarding this case, including, but not limited to the arbitration issues or motion to compel and resolution thereof, any anticipated motion for summary adjudication, the status of pre-certification discovery, and a suggested timeframe for any motion for class certification.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DOUGLAS CRUZ VS NATHAN BARAJAS

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.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c (f)(2).) “[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

MICHAEL A NICHOLS ET AL VS GERAGOS & GERAGOS ET AL

A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

“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.” (C.C.P., § 437c(f)(1).) III. Analysis a. Judicial Notice The Court grants Catamount’s request for judicial notice of the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, recorded December 31, 2019, the Deed of Trust, recorded May 31, 2006, the Assignment of Deed of Trust, recorded June 26, 2014, and the Substitution of Trustee, recorded on January 9, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants FCA US, LLC and Cerritos Dodge, Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue Nos. 2 and 3 and DENIED as to Issue Nos. 1 and 4. Plaintiff Federico Suarez Quezada’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to Categories 14 to 16 and 18 to 23.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 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.