What is a Motion for Trial Preference?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Trial Preference

Recent Rulings on Motion for Trial Preference

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not explain why they would be unable at the conclusion of trial to obtain a reinstatement of an STR permit in the event one is revoked. In short, the Court agrees with the City that each of these alleged harms is either too speculative and/or can be adequately compensated in money damages or by another legal remedy.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

., that Plaintiffs have only suffered economic damages, and further that Plaintiffs will not be able at trial to show they suffered property damage in connection with their business operations. Turner failed to do so.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

J of the Pomona Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.Plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial. (CC § 3295(c).) “[B]efore a trial court may enter an order allowing discovery of financial condition information under Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c), it must (1) weigh the evidence presented by both sides, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.” (Jabro v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Risk of maintaining class action status through trial. Even if a class is certified, there is always a risk of decertification. (See Weinstat v. Dentsply Intern., Inc. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1226 (“Our Supreme Court has recognized that trial courts should retain some flexibility in conducting class actions, which means, under suitable circumstances, entertaining successive motions on certification if the court subsequently discovers that the propriety of a class action is not appropriate.”).) 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

MYRNA KAWAKITA VS GEORGE TASHJIAN MD ET AL

Trial is set for April 20, 2020. Discussion Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation, seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff (“Client”). The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CENTURY GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC VS. ANNA COUMANS

The Court intends to rule as follows; This motion is moot as there are no cut off dates in place at this time as no trial date has been reset and will not be reset until October 26, 2020, the date of the Trial Setting Conference or later. Both counsel were informed of the above on August 28, 2020, with Plaintiff's first ex parte request regarding the discovery dates. See also Ventura Superior Court Civil Reopening Plan (Adopted June 9, 2020). Sanctions request by Defendant is denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

RE: PET’N ON FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR

Court intends to set this matter for trial. 3. Discovery motion filed by Diana Bundrum 8-7-2020 is set for 11-24-2020. CHERYL COPELAND DIANA BUNDRUM MICHAEL CRAMER DOUGLAS ETCHIESON GARY CLEVENGER JACK CLEVENGER JOSEPH ETCHIESON MARIE B ETCHIESON TIMOTHY ETCHIESON TIMOTHY ETHIESON FILED ON 05/04/20 BY ANDRE DEROUEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line #15 -- Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JUAN PALMA ET AL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

Trial is set for May 4, 2021. Legal Standard “The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

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

ARMANDO TORRES, ET AL. VS CARLOS A. TURCIOS DURAN

Plaintiffs argue the evidence is needed to carry their burden of proof at trial. It is the burden of the objecting party to support the applicability of a particular privilege. (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95.) Defendant did not file an opposition to the instant motions, and thus, does not establish the appropriateness of any objections asserted in the responses.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

MICHAEL S. MOSS VS ALI GHADBAN, ET AL.

D of the GLENDALE Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

KOOKMIN BEST INSURANCE CO., LTD (US BRANCH) VS PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

A of the BURBANK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PROBATE COURT TRIAL RE: PET'N FOR LETRS ADMIN W/IAEA

FILED ON 02/20/20 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances...

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE COURT TRIAL RE: PET'N TO TERMINATE GUARDIANSHIP (BY L.C.)

FILED ON 06/18/19 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances Note: Spanish interpreter is requested,...

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Prongs 1 & 2 “‘For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it 'might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ....' [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.’ [Citations.]”

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

ADAM SEVIM V. MARISSA HUDSON, ET AL.

Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) § 8:1140; see also (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories], 2031.300(b) [RFPs].) Plaintiff has made that showing here. In addition to compelling responses as set forth above, Plaintiff seeks to have the RFAs admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

MATTER OF THE MILLS FAMILY TRUST

Parties must come prepared to narrow issues for trial and to discuss dates of availability for trial. Any party wishing to object must file a written objection before the next hearing. The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

HENNESY V. ASHLEY

Automobile Club of Southern Calif. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1130—“trial court was not required to credit plaintiff's allegations that extrinsic evidence ‘renders the insurance contract at issue here ambiguous’” where language of policy attached to complaint showed otherwise.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

GUDINO V. DURAN ET AL.

The appellate court found the trial court erred in vacating the pretrial attachment order. The fact the damages themselves were unliquidated was not determinative. Nor did the uncertainty of the amount defeat attachment. And the fact extrinsic evidence was utilized to support how much was owed is commensurate with the statutory scheme.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

RE: PET’N FOR A STATUS REPORT

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Note: Order Granting Petition for Order Compelling Administrator to Account filed 6/17/2020 Need appearances to report status of trial setting JOHN S RICHARDS JOHN S. RICHARDS KEWAL SINGH BANGA PARAMJIT KAUR DALE KENNETH R STYLES PARAMJIT KAUR DALE RICHARD HOBIN RAVINDAR SINGH BANGA AMY ALVIS RAVINDER BANGA

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Except as stated in this order regarding the deadlines to disclose expert information, and the hearing date set by the Court to hear all motions for summary judgment, all remaining pre-trial deadlines are continued to a date consistent with the new trial date of January 11, 2020. Plaintiff is ordered to file a proof of service of the summons and complaint on or before August 11, 2020 for any defendant, including all Doe defendants, that have not already appeared in this action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE KONIGSBERG COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 3 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: Defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and New Line Productions, Inc. RESP. PARTY: Plaintiffs The Konigsberg Company and The Sanitsky Company TENTATIVE RULING Defendants’ Demurrer is to the 2nd cause of action for breach of the implied covenant and the 5th cause of action for fraud is OVERRULLED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREENFIELD ORGANIX, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LITTLE COTTAGE CAREGIVERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

.: 6 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Greenfield Organix d/b/a Loudpack RESP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • 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.