What is a Motion to Augment?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Augment

Recent Rulings on Motion to Augment

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

    Sep 17, 2020

  • 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

    Sep 15, 2020

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

    Sep 11, 2020

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

    Sep 11, 2020

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

    Sep 10, 2020

  • 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

    Sep 08, 2020

  • 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

    Aug 27, 2020

  • 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

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JAMES B. MORELL VS BOARD OF RETIREMENT ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Neither has filed a motion to augment. For the reasons stated below, their requests to augment the record are DENIED. Petitioner requests judicial notice of three registers of action for court and Judicial Council proceedings, and “of any individual documents listed in these registers of actions which are deemed pertinent and which are not already included in the Administrative Record.” (Pet. RJN at pp. 1-2.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE SUNSET LANDMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Conclusion Petitioner’s motion to augment is granted in part. As noted ante, the City must include the documents cited by the comment letters pursuant to Consolidated Irrigation. The City’s request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ELIJAH HAMMETT VS WHITTIER SCHOOL

In such a case, the party must make a motion to augment or amend its expert witness designation. CCP § 2034.610(a); Richaud v. Jennings (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 81, 90–92. If additional testimony is needed on subjects raised in an opposing party's expert witness exchange, the party has the right to serve a supplemental expert witness list within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MEENA ZAREH M D VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

TRIAL DATE: July 13, 2021 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK PROCEEDING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment Expert Witness List OPPOSITION: August 4, 2020 REPLY: August 10, 2020 TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion to augment expert witness list is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file a supplemental designation of a retained expert witness within 10 days of this date.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

THE SUNSET LANDMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Conclusion Petitioner’s motion to augment is granted in part. As noted ante, the City must include the documents cited by the comment letters pursuant to Consolidated Irrigation. The City’s request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANDREW KRELLESTEIN VS JEAN SHIOMOTO

Nor does the court have any motion to augment the record with extra-record evidence such as a declaration explaining what happened off the record at the DMV hearing or that Krellesteinn wanted to testify that he did not refuse a chemical test and was unable to do so. Given the complete lack of evidence that Krellestein was denied his right to appear and testify that he did not refuse a chemical test, he has not shown that he was denied a fair hearing. 3.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SHARON BARRINO VS. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Petitioner also failed to file a motion to augment the record with the subject exhibits. A.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

SHARON BARRINO VS. BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Petitioner also failed to file a motion to augment the record with the subject exhibits. A.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

JAMES E. SPEARS VS CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE APPEALS BOARD

On July 31, 2020 Petitioner filed an untimely motion to augment the administrative record. The writ petition concerns CUIAB’s denial of Petitioner’s administrative appeal in August 2018. Petitioner’s claims about actions of EDD in 2019 and 2020 are not properly before the court. Petitioner also has not satisfied the requirements of CCP section 1094.5(e) to augment the administrative record.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VIRGINA SIERRA VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

Motion to Augment the Record Petitioner moves to augment the record with a letter dated December 11, 2018 from the Department of Social Services to Petitioner, which granted her a “conditional criminal record exemption.” “As a general rule, a hearing on a writ of administrative mandamus is conducted solely on the record of the proceeding before the administrative agency.” (Richardson v. City and County of San Francisco (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 671, 702.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NIUKKA HERNANDEZ VS BEVERLY HOT SPRINGS INC ET AL

In ruling on a motion to augment an expert witness designation, the court must take into account “the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses . . . ,” and must determine that the opposing party “will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (a)-(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

ARSEN GEVORGYAN VS ELENA JANET AREVALO PANIAGUA

In ruling on a motion to augment an expert witness designation, the court must take into account “the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses . . . ,” and must determine that the opposing party “will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (a)-(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

USBALDO MUNOZ VS SEAN NICHOLAS FOSTER

CALENDAR MATTER #10 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant Foster’s motion to augment expert witness information is GRANTED. Moving Party to give NOTICE. Defendant Foster moves to augment his expert witness designation pursuant to CCP § 2034.610 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GRANVILLE H. MARSHALL, M.D. VS MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Marshall also was required to seek the admission of his extra-record evidence through a separate motion to augment the record. LASC 3.231(g)(3). Finally, the extra-record evidence must be authenticated and relevant. Marshall meets none of these requirements and the extra-record evidence has not been considered. Petitioner’s procedural failures mean that he has waived his claims, the Board’s objection to the extra-record evidence is sustained, and the Petition must be denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GOLOVKO VS. NORTON

HEARING ON MOTION TO AUGMENT COSTS AND AMEND JUDGMENT FILED BY PAUL NORTON * TENTATIVE RULING: * This court takes judicial notice of the court’s file to the extent that it contains facts subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452. This case involves competing requests for and objections to motions for attorney fees and costs after trial. The original complaint was filed on October 10, 2017 claiming damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETER HEFFNER VS CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIAL

[Tentative] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD ORDER _________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

REPUBLIC VS. GONZALEZ

HEARING ON MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE FILED BY GONZALEZ, INC., JUAN B. GONZALEZ * TENTATIVE RULING: * Hearing off calendar per fax.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.