What is a Motion to Dismiss?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

Recent Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

ESTATE OF DONALD KULICK JR

Submit a proposed Order Note: Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss filed by Stephen Kirk is set for hearing 12-24- 2020. FILED ON 08/21/20 BY BARRY THOMPSON PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Barry Thompson, father, still must do the following: 1. File Waiver of Accounting by Hylie Thompson or Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DAVID S ENGELMAN VS JOMAANE MOLETT

The unopposed motion to dismiss is granted for the reason set forth in the moving papers. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Dated this 2nd day of December 2020

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CITY OF INDUSTRY VS MARK RADECKI ET AL

The Court GRANTS City Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on lack of standing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MAURICIO JACOBS, ET AL. VS ROYAL MOVING & STORAGE INC., ET AL.

In the Tillery case, the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of California was faced with a Federal Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in which individual non-employer defendants argued that the plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim was invalid under the newly amended Labor Code Section 1102.5.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARY JACK ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

The court granted the application and scheduled the trial setting conference and hearing on the Motion for April 9, 2019, to be heard concurrently with Respondents’ motion to dismiss. On April 9, 2019, the court granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss the CEQA causes of action and denied Petitioners’ motion for a stay. On Jul17 16, 2020, the court denied the Petition. The court entered judgment on August 18, 2020. B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VAN LOON VS WESSELINK

On August 31, 2018, the Wesselink parties filed a Motion to Dismiss the Bankruptcy Proceedings for Cause under 11 USC 1112(b) as a bad faith filing. On September 25, 2018, the Wesselink parties prevailed as the Bankruptcy Court granted their Motion to Dismiss. Post-Judgment Proceedings & Contempt: After the bankruptcy case was dismissed. The trial court re-set the hearing for the motions to compel.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

LEIGH LAW VS. MCCORMACK

HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION FILED BY MICHELLE LIYNN MCCORMACK * TENTATIVE RULING: * On September 1, 2020 Defendant McCormack filed a motion toDismiss Action With Prejudice or To Compel LLG To Provide Mandatory form etc.” for the reasons stated below the motion is denied. On July 21, 2020 this court issued a detailed order granting Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a dismissal without prejudice entered by Department 15 of this court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

TINA YAN VS. STEVEN R. RHOADS

In that case, the defendant asked the court to take affirmative action to terminate the litigation in his motion to dismiss, (Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v. Hurrah (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 639, 641.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

LASHANNA GRANT, ET AL. VS SELF-UPGRADE VENTURES LLC, ET AL.

In support of the motion to dismiss, the defendant provided a Declaration from its Compliance Manager explaining its email marketing process and stated: “publishers control all aspects of transmitting the emails and make fundamental decisions concerning the emails themselves, including choosing each email's recipient.” (Durward, supra, 2019 WL 4930229, at *5.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVENPORT V. GHC OF SANTEE, LLC

Defendants have attached the arbitration agreement dated 6-29-15 and the arbitrator’s Ruling on Motion to Dismiss dated 3-16-20. (The Petition attaches the Ruling on the Motion to Dismiss as 8c.) is Petition which includes a proof of mail service to plaintiff dated March 17, 2020. The Ruling on the Motion to Dismiss includes a proof of service showing service on Jimmie Davenport and Mozelle Davenport. (See Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed on 2-14-17 under ROA No. 45.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

TIMOTHY JAMES ANDERSON VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On October 23, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivisions (f)(2). Trial is set for January 14, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the complaint because Plaintiff failed to timely amend the complaint after the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

MATTHEW BODIFORD VS. BETTY LEWIS,

Defendant Anthony Lewis’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s Motion is Denied. When he was represented by counsel, Defendant Lewis stipulated to the filing of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) (see 5/6/2020 stipulated order). After the FAC was filed, Defendant Lewis then unsuccessfully demurred to it (see 9/3/2020 minute order). His current motion substantially repeats the arguments he made in his demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

RONALD KIM ET AL VS PALM TREE INVESTMENTS INC ET AL

.: BC578348 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO BRING TO TRIAL Date: November 23, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Defendant Palm Tree Investment, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. BACKGROUND The complaint in this action was filed on April 9, 2015.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

JOEY ROMO, ET AL. VS WENDY MILLER, ET AL.

The Court may construe an unopposed motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution as an admission that the motion is meritorious, such that the Court may grant this motion without a hearing on the merits. (CRC Rule 3.1342(b).) As such, the motion is granted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Specially appearing Defendant Michael Hennessey’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of prosecution is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BECK V. CATANZARITE, ET AL.

In Citizens of Humanity, LLC, the appellate court found a favorable termination because the federal district court in the underlying action reached the merits of defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, after the plaintiffs opted not to file an amended complaint. (Citizens of Humanity, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

GODINES VS. EF EXPLORE AMERICA, INC.

Defendant EF Explore America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Case or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings, is granted based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. This case is ordered dismissed without prejudice. The Status Conference set for today is ordered off calendar. The parties’ contract contained a forum-selection clause requiring that any lawsuit arising out of the contract must be brought in Massachusetts.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

NUTRA NOW, INC. VS. DIAL RESPONSE

Hoggan’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Ryan Hoggan (“Hoggan”) moves for an order dismissing him from the instant action, pursuant to CCP § 418.10(a)(2). CCP § 418.10(a)(2) states as follows: (a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: ... (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

HENG VS SALIM

THEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

Defendants filed a 5 motion to dismiss, which was granted on August 4, 2017, based on the court’s lack of subject 6 matter jurisdiction. (Ibid.) A few hours after the dismissal of the California federal case, 7 Defendants filed an action against Venclose in the Superior Court of Delaware.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

IRIS HERNANDEZ VS ST FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER

.: BC681228 Hearing Date: November 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to dismiss Plaintiff Iris Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action after she slipped and fell at a hospital owned and operated by Defendant St. Francis Medical Center (“Defendant”). Defendant filed for bankruptcy on August 31, 2018, and the Bankruptcy Court issued an order creating a liquidation plan. Now, Defendant moves to dismiss this case because Plaintiff failed to file a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

THE LAW OFFICES OF JACK S. JOHAL VS. CHRISTINE CARR

. § 399, any party may bring a motion to dismiss this action, without prejudice. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

P O VS LOS ANGELES ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Third, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed in federal court on June 11, 2019 in case number 2:18-cv-09712. Fourth, an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed in federal court on August 1, 2019 in case number 2:18-cv-09712. Fifth, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed in federal court on August 21, 2019 in case number 2:18-cv-09712.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GENNCOMM, LLC. VS BEVERLY HILLS TEDDY BEAR COMPANY, ET AL.

BHTBC relies upon the Federal Court’s ruling on Genncomm’s motion to dismiss to show that there are interrelated issues and a risk of conflicting results. (BHTBC’s Request for Judicial Notice Exh. A.) Specifically, BHTBC presents argument related to their cross-claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. The validity of the patents in the Federal Case is relevant to BHTBC’s contentions disputing proper contract formation.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TRINHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE CORP VS TRANSFORM KM LLC, ET AL.

In light of the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s motions for writs of attachment are MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BEDFORD, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.

Rafferty (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 599, 602 [although a court may deny declaratory relief by sustaining a general demurrer without leave to amend, it is better procedure for the court to exercise its discretion by granting a motion to dismiss or by some other procedure].) This nevertheless remains an option in the future. In reply, County argues that courts routinely sustain demurrers to both writs of mandate and administrative writs, citing Stanton v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 239     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.