What is a Motion for Trial Preference?

Useful Resources for 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

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

FAHEY Judge presiding in Department 69 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 on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

FAHEY Judge presiding in Department 69 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 on the Motion for Order Allowing Deposition of Prisoner and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION, PET’N FOR PREDISTRIBUTION

FILED ON 07/16/20 BY DIANA KENLOW PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required DIANA KENLOW GLORIA T SMITH Need appearances to report status Note: Trial is set for 4-21 through 4-23-2021 and 4-28 through 4-30-2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 30. ALDO RITZ BRIAN KUCHARSKI ROY N JOHNSTON CECIL W. RITZ REVOCABLE TRUST KELLY D SISNEROZ NATHAN PASTOR KELLY D SISNEROZ PETER S.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS. OF NANCY SHEPSON

RE: MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE FILED ON 11/12/20 BY NANCY SHEPSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE If to proceed, will Need: 1. Appearances to report status 2. Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice Note: It appears this petition is now moot. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DIEGO GARCIA, ET AL. VS U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable John Doyle, Judge presiding in Department 58 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

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DIEGO GARCIA, ET AL. VS U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable John Doyle, Judge presiding in Department 58 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

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MILDRED MANCE, BY AND THROUGH HER REPRESENATIVE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REGINA MANCE VS GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE

If the court grants the motion for trial preference, the court must set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from the date of the hearing on the motion for preference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

SEAN PERKIN, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN ASSOCIATION

Most of the cases relied by defendant on concern punitive damages at trial, after presentation of evidence, elements of proof and similar issues. At this stage, plaintiff has no obligation to prove anything. Defendant has 20 days to answer the First Amended Complaint. Case Management Conference is continued to 5/20/2021 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel are to meet and confer on the issues set forth in CRC 3.727 and 3.724 and be prepared to discuss those issues at the CMC.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS FRANCISCO PRECIADO PEREZ, ET AL.

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the West District, Santa Monica, the Honorable Craig Karlan, Judge presiding in Department N 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

    Feb 01, 2021

MAGDA LOPEZ VS STEVEN AGUILAR, ET AL.

Trial is set for November 2, 2021. Discussion The Law Office of James A. Flanagan (“Firm”) 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

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MILDRED MANCE, BY AND THROUGH HER REPRESENATIVE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REGINA MANCE VS GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE

If the court grants the motion for trial preference, the court must set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from the date of the hearing on the motion for preference. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

BROWN VS. ANAHEIM GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER

If a plaintiff has pleaded several theories, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.) If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish, by means of competent and admissible evidence that a triable issue of material fact still remains. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Id. at 850–851.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

ROY E STEPHENSON VS HICKINGBOTHAM LIMITED ET AL

Information is relevant to the subject matter if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.” Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013. Admissibility at trial is not required for information to be discoverable as the test is whether the information sought might reasonably lead to other evidence that would be admissible. Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTATE OF CAROLE DELAUTER

PROBATE COURT TRIAL RE: SPOUSAL PROPERTY PETN FILED ON 06/10/19 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Unable to review. File is unavailable at this time. Moving paper in Vol. 2 Laurie Schwarzrock, former conservator, still needs to do the following: 1. Appear at the hearing 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PROBATE COURT TRIAL RE: PET'N FOR PROBATE OF WILL & LTRS TEST IAEA

FILED ON 10/25/19 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances...

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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

Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Snyder Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JASON YANUZZI VS REZA KHODAVERDIAN, M.D., ET AL.

E 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. 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. Upon receipt of this notice, counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DARLENE SALISBURY HORNBEAK VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND DOES 1-100

Plaintiff contends there will be no prejudice by granting the motion, and the amendment will not delay trial. The motion is unopposed and granted. The trial in this action is scheduled for 8/23/21, and thus, the parties will not be prejudice by this ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to file a copy of her amended complaint within ten days. Plaintiff is ordered to serve Barreto in compliance with the Rules of Court. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VN PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS MACAULEY EKPENISI, ET AL.

The SLAPP statute reflects the Legislature's “strong preference for awarding attorney fees to successful defendants.” (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 328, 338.) Further, the provision is broadly construed so as to effectuate the legislative purpose of reimbursing the prevailing defendant for expenses incurred in extracting herself from a baseless lawsuit. (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 443, 448.) The fee amount is left to the trial court's sound discretion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SARA ARABSHAHI VS THE MEADOWS POST ACUTE

Any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned IC court. COUNSEL ARE TO NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE CASE SUMMARY STILLS SHOWS DEPARTMENT 31 WITH FUTURE HEARINGS, COUNSEL ARE TO CONSIDER THEM TO BE OFF CALENDAR UNTIL THE NEW COURT SAYS OTHERWISE. Dated this 29th day of January, 2021 Hon Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALISON SMITH VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

Dignity Health (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 203, 214; see also id. at 2818-219 [upholding trial court’s finding that if there are no acts alleged, there can be no showing that the alleged acts arise from protected activity, and that the trial court could not accept evidence based solely on what the defendant believed plaintiff’s claims are based on].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADELAIDE ROSE PALMSTROM VS CITY OF PASADENA ET AL

As stated in CCP § 437c(l), “In an action arising out of an injury to the person or to property, if a motion for summary judgment is granted on the basis that the defendant was without fault, no other defendant during trial, over plaintiff's objection, may attempt to attribute fault to, or comment on, the absence or involvement of the defendant who was granted the motion.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CIELO ROSADO VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

Trial is set for January 25, 2022. 1. Motion to Compel Furthers Re: Form Interrogatories Legal Standard A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories if the propounding party deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • 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.