What is a Motion to Augment?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Augment

Recent Rulings on Motion to Augment

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

SABRINA FIELDS VS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.

On April 23, 2019, at the trial setting conference, the court instructed Petitioner “to confer with counsel for respondent regarding the completeness of the record and either file a stipulation and proposed order regarding any additions to the record or file a motion to augment.” Respondent gave Petitioner notice of this order on May 1, 2019. Petitioner did not file a stipulation regarding any additions to the record. Nor has she filed a motion to augment or correct the record.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHIQUITA CANYON LLC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Judicial Notice; Motion to Augment Record Respondents’ Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibits 1-3 – Granted. Respondents’ Motion to Augment the Administrative Record with Declaration of Principal Engineer Vander Vis – Granted. Factual and Procedural Background The Landfill and July 2011 CUP Application Petitioner owns and operates the Landfill, located at 29201 Henry Mayo Drive, in the unincorporated community of Castaic.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

IVAN MORAN VS. CITY OF PASADENA, ET AL

As such, the costs sought for the motion to augment record, petition for writ of mandate, and the summary judgment motion shall be taxed in the total amount of $365.25. Next, City moves to strike the cost Plaintiff incurred in the amount of $2,670 for trial transcripts (rough), which was “billed to CWG”.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARSEN GEVORGYAN VS ELENA JANET AREVALO PANIAGUA

.: BC692630 Hearing Date: March 13, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to augment Expert witness list Plaintiff Arsen Gevorgyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Elena Janey Arevalo Paniagua (“Defendant”). Defendant moves to augment her expert witness designation. Defendant also seeks an order authorizing the new expert witnesses to examine Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

REPUBLIC VS GONZALEZ

HEARING ON MOTION TO AUGMENT OR AMEND EXPERT WITNESS LIST FILED BY NEW AMERICA GROUP, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Appear.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

GLADYS E DUQUE VS DAVID S ROSENBERG MD

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION On July 17, 2017, plaintiff Gladys E. Duque (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against defendant David S. Rosenberg, M.D. (“Defendant”). On July 16, 2019, Defendant sent a demand for exchange of expert witness information. On August 12, 2019, the parties agreed to an informal expert exchange on August 19, 2019 and a final exchange date fifty days before trial.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HERRICK V. PETE CICH MGMT LLC

Plaintiff Danielle Herrick's motion to augment her expert witness list is granted. The Court is persuaded that: (a) all of the conditions listed in CCP §§ 2034.610 and 2034.620 are satisfied, and (b) that this is an appropriate case for the Court to allow plaintiff to augment her expert witness designation. Thus, the Court allows plaintiff to augment her expert witness designation to include Jeff Bruno. Plaintiff shall produce Jeff Bruno for deposition upon request by defendant.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BLAIR V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

For the same reasons articulated in the ruling on petitioner Fox Capital Management Corp.’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record, the court denies petitioner Seven Springs, Limited Partnership’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record. TENTATIVE RULING # 13: PETITIONER SEVEN SPRINGS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP’S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

ARSEN GEVORGYAN VS ELENA JANET AREVALO PANIAGUA

.: BC692630 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to augment Expert witness list Plaintiff Arsen Gevorgyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Elena Janey Arevalo Paniagua (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves to augment her expert witness designation, which Plaintiff opposes. Defendant makes a series of representations in the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

ROBERT VARTZAR ET AL VS NEW STAR REALTY INC

.: BC721623 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendants new star realty and jenny s. nam’s motion to augment defendants’ expert witness list Defendants New Star Realty and Jenny S. Nam’s Motion to Augment the Expert Witness List is GRANTED. Factual Background This is a negligence action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SIERRA CLUB VS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [EFILE]

Sierra Club filed a motion to augment administrative record. ROA # 168. This motion is not before the Court. See Local Rule 2.1.19 (failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in motion not being heard). The Otay 250 Settlement This matter was previously scheduled for January 27, 2020. Prior to the hearing the Court was informed that the Sierra Club reached a settlement regarding the "Otay 250 project." See, ROA # 207 [Dismissal of Sunroad entities].

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

KATHLEEN ANDERSON VS. ALEX PADILLA

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD Plaintiffs have filed a motion to augment the record with two documents from July 3, 2019 and August 13, 2019. Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that the documents post- date the subject decision in this matter, and that Corporations Code section 2287 subdivision (d) provides, "[t]he claimant shall have the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of section 2282 by competent evidence at an evidentiary hearing.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

KATHLEEN ANDERSON VS. ALEX PADILLA

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD Plaintiffs have filed a motion to augment the record with two documents from July 3, 2019 and August 13, 2019. Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that the documents post- date the subject decision in this matter, and that Corporations Code section 2287 subdivision (d) provides, “[t]he claimant shall have the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of section 2282 by competent evidence at an evidentiary hearing.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

DORINDA MAE BROWN VS EAN HOLDINGS LLC ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST On July 20, 2017, plaintiff Dorina Mae Brown filed this action against EAN Holdings LLC, Zuber Murad, and Annet McCrosky for injuries and damages arising from a July 21, 2015 car accident. Plaintiff was stopped in traffic when Murad, who was driving a rental car from Enterprise Car Rental Company (sued as EAN Holdings), crashed into a vehicle in front of him, which was then pushed into Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff moves to add Dr.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC VS. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-SANTA ANA REGION

s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC VS. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-SANTA ANA REGION

Motion to Augment the Record Petitioners Edwards Lifesciences LLC and Baxter International, Inc.’s motion to augment the record is DENIED. I. Background This matter concerns a directive issued by the Regional Board in August 2018 regarding investigations to be undertaken by Petitioners at a property on Armstrong Avenue in Irvine. The parties refer to this directive as the “2018 Directive.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

UNIVERSITY CITY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Plaintiff/Petitioner's Motion to Augment Administrative Record is DENIED. Petitioner's September 2019 PRA seeks all "documents or references to any certifications or permits from the State of California or federal government certifying the safety of the drinking water that will be produced by the Pure Water San Diego Program" from 2013 to present." Those are not the same records that would be part of the Pure Water facilities and pipeline construction Project approved in the EIR.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

UNIVERSITY CITY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

Plaintiff/Petitioner's Motion to Augment Administrative Record is DENIED. Petitioner's September 2019 PRA seeks all "documents or references to any certifications or permits from the State of California or federal government certifying the safety of the drinking water that will be produced by the Pure Water San Diego Program" from 2013 to present." Those are not the same records that would be part of the Pure Water facilities and pipeline construction Project approved in the EIR.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

BERIONES VS IMH ASSETS CORP

The motion to augment is DENIED as to the remaining materials. As the record on appeal is still being compiled, the Clerk of the San Diego County Superior Court is directed to prepare the clerk's transcript consistent with both Appellant's record designation and the foregoing rulings. Appellant's motion to augment the record on appeal with a settled statement for the July 19, 2019 hearing is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES, INC. V. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

It did not file any motion to augment the record. The CCC does not object to the Request. However, the Court does not find the exhibit material to its decision and declines to take judicial notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

DONALD MCPHERSON ET AL VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH ET AL

Motion to Augment the Record Petitioners seek to augment the Administrative Record with Exhibits 2-3 and portions of Exhibit 4 of the McPherson declaration. A.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

ALONSO OCON ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ET AL

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Augment Plaintiffs’ Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034 Expert Witness List is GRANTED. 1) Plaintiffs can move to augment their expert witness list by adding the name and address of any expert witness subsequently retained if Plaintiffs engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information. Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.610 There is no issue with the timeliness of each parties’ designation of experts. Plaintiffs served their designation on 9/3/19. Opposition, Ex. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAYO VS NIDEFFER

Plaintiff's Motion to Augment Expert Witness List is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.