What is a Motion for Summary Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Summary Judgment

Recent Rulings on Motion for Summary Judgment

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

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. Motion by Saddleback Corp. dba Saddleback Waterproof for Summary Judgment or Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Defendant Saddleback’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of Issues 5 and 6 (statute of limitations) is DENIED.

  • Hearing

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Summary Judgment will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY INC ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARTIN BALMACEDA VS ZHICHENG LIU ET AL

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiff’s theory of the case against Defendants is that they negligently entrusted the vehicle to Liu.

  • Hearing

ELEAZAR URIZAR VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LACMTA), ET AL.

Given that there is a motion for summary judgment by a defendant set to be heard in less than one month, and Plaintiff will be prejudiced if Counsel is permitted to withdraw, absent a mandatory ground for relief, the motion is denied. Moving Counsel is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

JESSI LEE LOPEZ VS ROBERT DE LA CRUZ ET AL

The Court wishes to review all papers filed in connection with the motion for summary judgment, and therefore continues the hearing date from 12/1/20 to _____________ at 1:30 p.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The time for filing a reply is NOT extended as result of this ruling, and the reply papers remain due pursuant to code.

  • Hearing

ARA AIRAPETIAN ET AL VS STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES ET AL

.: BC719862 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: December 2, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues as to Plaintiffs Mariam Nazloian and Karapet Nazloian (the “Nazloian Motion”)[1].

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

CHRISTOPHER POLANCO VS. LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Armagan's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HEINE VS TARGET

Moreover, the trial court cannot assess the credibility of the parties on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication. (Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(e); AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1064.) In ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication, the trial court must consider not only the evidence submitted but the reasonable inferences deducible from such evidence. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 840.)

  • Hearing

BARADAR VS. COMMUNITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES

HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION FILED BY ON THE HILL TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSN. * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant On The Hill Townhomes Association (“HTA”) is granted. Defendant has met its initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing the non-existence of any triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (a); Aguilar v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BARADAR VS. COMMUNITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES

HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION FILED BY COMMUNITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORP. * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Community Real Estate Services Corp. is denied as moot. On November 16, 2020, plaintiff dismissed all causes of action against this defendant.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF MARY L COLE ET AL VS ARMEN HOVHANNISYAN MD GROUP

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

WINSTON VS AKHOIAN

Winston & Associates (“Plaintiff”) in this action [“Motion 2” below]; and (3) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), filed by Plaintiff on 5/26/20, as to the sole cause of action presented in the Complaint [“Motion 3” below]. MOTION 1 is GRANTED, conditioned upon payment of $4,000 to compensate Plaintiff for costs reasonably incurred based on Defendant’s conduct.

  • Hearing

GINA BORGIA GARNICA, ET AL. VS PETER SCHULAM, ET AL.

In opposition, Defendant asserts he has filed a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations that is currently set for 12/7/20. Defendant contends leave to amend should be denied because Plaintiffs failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, as Plaintiffs did not submit a declaration stating the reasons why the request was not made earlier.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JENNIFER LITTLE VS JONATHAN LOPEZ ET AL

DISCUSSION Item 1 – Filing and Motion Fees First, as to the $513.75 fee against Plaintiff for Defendant’s filing of a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argues that Defendant should have to pay $500.00. As Defendant explains, the additional $13.73 is a result of a credit card usage fee, which is imposed by the mandatory electronic filing at 2.75% of the motion fees.

  • Hearing

JANET ROE VS DAVID PARK ET AL

(See Plaintiff Janet Roe’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“PSS”) 34 (incorporating Defendants’ Separate Statement).) Plaintiff also admits that Defendant Park did not say anything inappropriate to Plaintiff while she was in his class or do anything inappropriate to Plaintiff in front of the class or with anybody present. (PSS 9-11, 36.)

  • Hearing

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

On a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that each element of the cause of action in question has been proved, and that there is no defense thereto. (Code of Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (o)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)

  • Hearing

JORGE GUZMAN JR VS HECTOR CHAVEZ ET AL

On August 30, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

MARGARET KEYES VS LISA ZEDER, ET AL.

Design Group, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable, to continue the hearing on Defendant Lisa Zeder’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and a request for sanctions. [TENTATIVE] RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion Compel Deposition of Defendant L.Z. Design Group, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request to Continue the Hearing on Defendant Lisa Zeder’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES RAMIREZ VS PROLAND MANAGEMENT COMPANY L

A motion for summary judgment must be denied where the moving party’s evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition (Leyva v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475) or where the opposition is weak (Salasguevara v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MELBA FERNANDEZ VS JOSE GARCIA, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GEORGE SANTOPIETRO VS JAMES HARDEN, ET AL.

On the same day, this Court granted Solimar’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Second Cause of Action of the Complaint and denied it as to the remainder. On September 24, 2020, Santopietro filed the instant Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c). On November 12, 2020, Wiseman filed an Opposition. On November 18, 2020, Santopietro filed a Reply.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Based on the above, the court DENIES Defendant’s (County of Orange) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues filed on 1-29-20 under ROA No. 172. Since the court had DENIED the Motion as to Issues Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the court also DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is to give notice.

  • Hearing

COHN V. ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF NEWPORT BEACH, LP

Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendant’s (The Irvine Company LLC) unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on 9-23-20 under ROA No. 99. Defendant is to give notice.

  • Hearing

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.