What is a Motion to Augment?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Augment

Recent Rulings on Motion to Augment

SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

City And County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643; respondent has not supported its claim that it complied with Section 66001(a) with specific citations to the record; and a full refund of the fee is the appropriate remedy Prior Court Rulings The prior rulings of the court on the motion to augment the record and on the demurrers to the complaint and petition are not rulings on the merits of the writ petition or a judgment that collaterally estops or bars petitioners from raising the issue of the applicability

  • Hearing

CATHERINE BRUNI VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

On September 29, 2020, the court granted Petitioner’s motion to augment the administrative record with a permit for outside employment signed by Petitioner and City in February 2017. On November 16, 2020, at the request of the court, Counsel lodged with the court by email an FTP link from which the court could download videos of the Body Worn Camera incident and Traffic Collision incident, discussed below. The parties agree that those videos are part of the certified administrative record.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TRAN VS. PALOMAR HEALTH

Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendants' supplemental expert designation is granted without prejudice for Defendants to bring a motion to augment their expert witness list pursuant to CCP § 2034.620. At the time the General Order was issued on 5/12/20, all expert designation dates had expired and all expert exchanges had been made. The Court did not reopen the dates when trial was re-set, other than the limited order as to Plaintiffs' expert designation on 6/3/20.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HUDSON VS. CHANCE

HEARING ON MOTION TO AUGMENT AND/OR CONTEST TENTATIVE RULING FILED BY DOUGLAS R. CHANCE JR. * TENTATIVE RULING: * The original complaint in this case was filed on September 10, 2007. The Plaintiff thereafter obtained a default judgment and renewed that default judgment on April 17, 2017. The Defendant moved to vacate the default judgment on November 21, 2019. That motion was denied by this court on November 21, 2019.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SANTOS FLANIKEN VS TIMOTHY R COMMERFORD ET AL

Motion to Augment Expert Witness List Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On February 8, 2018, Plaintiff Santos Flaniken (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Timothy R. Commerford and Aleece Commerford in their capacities as individuals and trustees of the Commerford Revocable Trust as Amended and Restated on February 18, 2005 (collectively “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PASADENA CIVIC CENTER COALITION VS CITY OF PASADENA

CITY OF PASADENA Case Number: BS164664 Hearing Date: October 30, 2020 [Tentative] ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD [Tentative] ORDER DENYING RELIEF PETITIONER’S CEQA CLAIMS

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DAMIAN GONZALEZ-MENDEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MR. STEVEN GORDON, ET AL.

This showing must be made in a separate motion to augment the record. LASC 3.231(g)(3). Mendez failed to make a motion to augment the record and provides no explanation why. As a result, his Exhibit 1 was improperly attached to his brief. Mendez argues that Hearing Officer Freeman improperly excluded the declaration from evidence because Hearing Officer Marquez already possessed it and the declaration should have been part of the record. Pet. Op. Br. at 3.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TANIA ESTRADA VS MICHAEL PRIEBE

Motion to Augment Expert Witness List Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On November 28, 2017, Plaintiff Tania Estrada (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Michael Priebe (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges motor vehicle negligence and two counts of negligence per se in the complaint arising from an automobile collision that occurred on September 20, 2016.

  • Hearing

SHALENA THERESE GARZA VS BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING Case Number: 19STCP04970 Hearing Date: October 23, 2020 [Tentative] ORDER DENYING WRIT PETITION [Tentative] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

Defilippis, counsel for Jeremy Wright, filed this motion on behalf of apparently all plaintiffs for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying the motion to augment the expert witness list. Defendants oppose the motion. III. Analysis. Presiding over a civil law and motion department involves plenty of work to decide cases rightly or wrongly the first time. One of the rights of a court is not have the administration of justice indeed good and burdened by repeated motions on which it has already ruled.

  • Hearing

KRIS KAT, LLC VS. CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION

In making such a ruling, the Court remains cognizant that any decision on Petitioners’ first cause of action for writ of mandate will still be subject to the general rules concerning review of the administrative record, plus any documentation properly considered via a motion to augment. The parties do not address the specific objections made to each discovery request.

  • Hearing

WATER RATE CASES (CHINITZ V CITY OF SANTA CRUZ; KESSNER V CITY OF SANTA CLARA;

Plaintiff also alleges that City charges for tras and sewer services in excess of the cost to provide these services to the class The City has answered the complaint, and has served the administrative record; the mee and confer as to its contents should now be completed, and any motion to augment is to be file on October 15, 2020 and heard on November 20.

  • Hearing

SAVE OUR RURAL TOWN VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Conclusion The motion to augment is denied.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT VS RESPONDENT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

Yoo first became aware of Mayfield’s desire to augment the record on September 4, 2020, when he received notice for the motion to augment. Yoo Decl., ¶6. 3. Analysis Mayfield seeks to augment the Administrative Record with his declaration, which reflects that he continued to work as a deputy sheriff in non-administrative positions after the Commission’s decision.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CATHERINE BRUNI VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

On July 31, 2020, Petitioner filed her motion to augment the administrative record. The court has received Respondent’s opposition and Petitioner’s reply. On September 24, 2020, the court continued the hearing on the writ petition based on the fact some materials are missing from the administrative record. The motion to augment remains on calendar for September 29, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HERMOSA FITNESS, LLC VS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, ET AL.

On March 5, 2020, the court granted Petitioner’s motion to augment the administrative record. The court granted Respondents’ oral request to file an amended opposition to the writ petition. On May 8, 2020, Respondents filed their substitute opposition brief to the writ petition. On September 9, 2020, Petitioner filed a reply. The court has received the administrative record and joint appendix.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EMILIANO CHACON VS WALNUT PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ET AL

Motion to Augment Expert Witness List Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff Almir Mansilla (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Haas Automation, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability in the complaint in relation to a defective mini mill causing Plaintiff injuries on December 7, 2015.

  • Hearing

SLS VENICE HOLDINGS, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

If no agreement can be reached, counsel for petitioner is to file a motion to augment the record.” On June 1, 2020, Petitioner filed its opening brief in support of the petition. On July 1, 2020, Respondent filed its opposition and declaration of Valerie Steffens. On July 13, 2020, Petitioner filed a reply and declaration of Richard Ramer. On July 15, 2020, Respondent filed evidentiary objections to the Ramer declaration. On July 21, 2020, the court continued the hearing to September 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RESIDENTS FOR ORCUTT SENSIBLE GROWTH V. COUNTY OF SB

Nature of Proceedings: Petition: Writ of Mandate (CEQA); Motion to Augment Record This motion to augment the record was filed on May 26, 2020. Santa Barbara County (“County”) moved to augment the record with the following documents: “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis” and “Noise Analysis” (together, Analyses). On May 15, 2020, petitioners filed a response to the motion to augment the record. On August 24, 2020, the court allowed additional briefing.

  • Hearing

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

Sueyoshi previously denied a motion to augment the administrative record to include this document, further administrative proceedings have occurred since that ruling was made. Petitioner did request Respondent consider the document as part of its determination in these further administrative proceedings, and Respondent denied this request.

  • Hearing

EMILY SECOR ISMAEL VS. COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

Sueyoshi previously denied a motion to augment the administrative record to include this document, further adminisfrative proceedings have occurred since that mling was made. Petitioner did request Respondent consider the document as part of its determination in these further administrative proceedings, and Respondent denied this request.

  • Hearing

6401 BALBOA AVENUE LLC VS CALIFORNIA FOOD MANAGEMENT LLC

Plaintiff has objected to the amount of time spent on the appeal, including the hours spent on record preparation and designation (10.6), motion to augment (9.3) opening brief (103.8), and preparation of the reply brief, almost twice as much as the opening brief. (206.7). The court reduces the fee award $10,000 based upon the amount of time spent on the reply brief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANUEL CARLOS LOPEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Motion to Augment the Administrative Record On or about March 20, 2020, Petitioner lodged an administrative record, paginated “AR0001-49.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SULLIVAN EQUITY PARTNERS LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The voluminous exhibits submitted by Petitioner on or about August 2, 2018 in support of its motion to augment the record were helpful to the court in ruling on the motion. (See Leitner Decl. Filed 8/2/18.) Although the court did not grant the motion to augment in full, the court did grant the motion as to several categories of documents that were relevant to the court’s decision on the writ petition. (See Decision on Motion to Augment dated 8/23/18 at 7-10.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GOLOVKO VS. NORTON

HEARING ON MOTION TO AUGMENT COSTS AND AMEND JUDGMENT FILED BY PAUL NORTON * TENTATIVE RULING: * See #1 above.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.