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

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

VAGAN AZARYAN VS EXXON MOBILE

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

    Sep 18, 2020

DANIEL GINZBURG, ET AL. VS 15025 SATICOY STREET, INC., ET AL.

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

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RICHARD MACIAS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Kim, Judge presiding in Department S27, 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

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Trial is set for April 21, 2020. 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

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

REBEKAH CEHAJIC VS Z&A ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

Linfield, Judge presiding in Department 34, 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

    Jul 30, 2020

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOHN PHAM VS HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

HILL, Judge presiding in Department M, 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

    Jul 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SHARON HUDSON VS RIVIERA PLACE,LLC

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Southwest District, Torrance, the Honorable GARY TANAKA, Judge presiding in Department B, 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

    Jul 27, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

While the action was initially set for trial on December 2, 2019, the trial was continued to March 23, 2020, then taken off calendar, with a trial setting conference to occur on January 28, 2021. Although Defendant’s motions were not filed until December 10, 2019, eight days after the matter was initially set for trial, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the motions, as Plaintiffs suffer no prejudice when the matter currently lacks a trial date.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

Plaintiff may not wait to allege the specific facts “at the time of trial,” as she seeks to do (Compl. ¶ 40) because Plaintiff is required to “set forth the essential facts of [her] case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App. 4th 592, 608.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EDUARD GASPARYAN VS. DANIEL GREEN ET. AL.

At that time, trial was set for late February. On 1/29/20, Mr. Tamer indicated that 2/3/20 would be an available date for the deposition but it turns out that defense counsel Mr. Malek was unavailable. On 1/30/20, Mr. Tamer was offered 2/4/20 for the deposition of his client. Mr. Tamer sent an email on 1/30/20 indicating that he would check with his client about 2/4/20. On 2/3/20, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

LA LIVE PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KA WAIKWAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

A separate trial on the cross-complaints’ claims does not seem necessary or conductive to judicial economy. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for bifurcation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RE: TRIAL SETTING RE: PET'N FOR LIMITED C'SHIP SET BY D15 (FILED 5/17/19 BY M. PHILLIPS)

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances...

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Trial Setting Conference is set for May 19, 2020. Legal Standard “The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the terrier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

Legal Standard “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Factual Background Proposition 65 imposes warning requirements of the presence of certain chemicals identified by the State of California.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a) provides that, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

PETITION OF PRABAHAR ARUL PANDIARAJ JOSEPH

Court intends to set this matter for trial CHERYL COPELAND DIANA BUNDRUM MICHAEL CRAMER DOUGLAS ETCHIESON GARY CLEVENGER JACK CLEVENGER JOSEPH ETCHIESON MARIE B ETCHIESON TIMOTHY ETCHIESON TIMOTHY ETHIESON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances GREGG CHORBAJIAN J. WESLEY SMITH JOHN E CHORBAJIAN AND ANITA CH KAREN RUANE MATTHEW B TALBOT

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NICHOLAS V. MORETTA VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., §428.50, subd, (b).) If a party fails to file a cross-complaint within the time limits described above, he or she must obtain permission from the court to file the cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.50, 428.50, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RUTH XIAOYU ZHANG VS NESTOR H. LLERNA

As in trial court litigation, attorney fees on appeal are recoverable if authorized by contract, statute or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A)-(C); Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 230, 250.) Discussion The Llerenas move the court for an order awarding attorneys fees of $19,855.00 and costs of $763.93 incurred while this matter was on appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SHIRLEY DELOIS FREGIA VS DOE MANAGER, ET AL.

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Southwest District, Torrance, the Honorable Gary Tanaka, Judge presiding in Department B, 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

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Second, CCP section 391(b)(1) applies where an in pro per plaintiff has initiated at least five litigations that were either finally determined adversely or that were unjustifiably allowed to remain pending for at least two years without a hearing or trial. Here, Plaintiff has initiated five cases, but not all five have been “finally determined adversely” (CCP § 391(b)(1), emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

DANIEL FLORES CAMPO, ET AL. VS AMPCO CONTRACTING, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Trial is set for May 12, 2021. PARTIES’ REQUEST Defendants AMPCO Contracting, Inc. and Safeway Inc. (“Demurring Defendants”) ask the Court to sustain their demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Demurring Defendants argue the complaint does not state sufficient facts specific to Demurring Defendants to constitute a cause of action against them and the complaint is uncertain as to Plaintiffs’ employment relationship.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 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.