What is a Motion to Dismiss?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

Recent Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

LOREN NAUTA V. SUSAN MURPHY

Currently before the Court is Murphy’s Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 399(a).

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

FERNANDO HERNANDEZ VS GEORGE "FRANK" ALVAREZ

Defendant George Alvarez’s MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO DISMISS UN-SERVED DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO CCP § 583.420 Responding Party: Plaintiffs, Fernando Hernandez and Maria De Jesus Hernandez 2.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MATTHEW AARON PICKART VS MALCOLM S WATSON ET AL

The trial court in Landau granted the premises liability defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of misjoinder of the parties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a claim can be stated against two different sets of defendants so long as the plaintiff alleges (1) an injury, (2) negligence by successive tortfeasors, and (3) doubt as to which is liable, as required by CCP §379c.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

TRESSLER, STEVEN VS. AMERIFI MORTGAGE

Defendants Sepehr Khanian, Steven Hall, Parliament Financial Group, Summit Research Firm Inc. and Nationwide Consumer Solutions Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring Case to Trial Within 5 Years – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to August 13, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24. The Court file is missing the declaration of Mr. Lindstrom as well as the exhibits referenced in the opposition brief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

TONY TALEFF VS MARCIA LYNN SATTGAST TALEFF

Marcia Lynn Sattgast Taleff, et al. 20TRCV00077 Marcia Lynn Sattgast Taleff’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint TENTATIVE RULING Marcia Lynn Sattgast Taleff’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is denied without prejudice. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a) states: “A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ABBOTT VS WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING

Milgard seeks non-expert fees: $80.62 for travel expense to Pete Cruz’s deposition, $90.00 filing fee for a motion to bifurcate, $90.00 filing fee for a motion to dismiss, and $1,450.00 for first filing fees. Milgard previously tried to recover these through the memorandum of costs. Milgard’s revised request for $119,591.31, less $8,557.00 for the questionable fees above, less $44,553.68 in expert fees, and less $1.710.62 in non-expert fees comes to $64,770.01.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

VAL KNEZEVIC, JR VS W2 ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORP

Thereafter, nothing occurred until defendants filed the current motion to dismiss for failure to bring the action to trial within 5 years, on February 3, 2020. The motion to dismiss was originally set for hearing on March 11, 2020. On that date, the Honorable Pauline Maxwell continued the hearing to April 8, 2020, because of discrepancies in court records regarding the proper address for plaintiff’s attorney of record.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In light of the foregoing, Marianne Strauther’s Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 5, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. THE COURT ORDERS THAT ANTANESHA HASLEY APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION BY JULY 7, 2020. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF ANTANESHA HASLEY’S COMPLAINT AT THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

CAMERON GRIMSLEY VS PROVIDENCE ST JOHNS HEALTH CENTER

.: BC696639 Hearing Date: July 1, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant’s motion TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT Plaintiff Cameron Grimsley (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Defendant Providence St. John’s Health Center (“Defendant”), among others, on March 5, 2018. The summons and complaint were served upon Defendant via Peter Cayetano, the agent authorized to accept service, on March 10, 2020, at 11:52 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

CAROLINA RAMIREZ, ET AL. V. CLEARWATER NURSERY, INC., ET AL.

Jafroodi filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding arguing it failed to state sufficient facts. Plaintiffs argued that the information they needed to support the adversary proceeding is governed by protective orders filed in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

WARREN VS. FITCH

Defendant Fitch’s unopposed motion to dismiss is granted. After modifying the proposed order by specifying that the dismissal is without prejudice and by deleting line 23, the proposed order is signed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

RUTH ZIMMERMAN VS JAY S. ROTHMAN

On June 18, 2020, Rothman filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. // Motion to Dismiss Zimmerman argues Rothman’s appeal should be dismissed because Labor Code section 98.2(a) required it to be filed by December 27, 2019, which was 15 days after December 12, 2019, when the Labor Commissioner’s order was served on Rothman.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

First Affirmative Defense Plaintiff challenges LaSalle’s first affirmative defense for failure to state a claim as improper because it should have been set forth in a motion to dismiss or demurrer to her complaint. Plaintiff argues LaSalle misstates the facts in attempt to invalidate her complaint. LaSalle opposes by arguing that this defense negates at least one element of each of Plaintiff’s causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

The only two cases Defendant cites in support of its position are federal cases, both decided at the motion to dismiss stage under federal pleading rules, which are different from the rules applicable in California state court. Construing the FAC liberally and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court is required to do at this stage, the Court finds Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendant made false statements to the public.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2020

FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

The only two cases Defendant cites in support of its position are federal cases, both decided at the motion to dismiss stage under federal pleading rules, which are different from the rules applicable in California state court. Construing the FAC liberally and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court is required to do at this stage, the Court finds Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendant made false statements to the public.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

IN RE CLOUDERA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

As such, it is not ordinarily subject to resolution on a motion to dismiss, and dismissal is appropriate only when a plaintiff does not plead any facts from which it can reasonably be inferred the defendant was a control person. (Hellum v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

MM DEVELOPMENT VS. LINX CARD

HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS FILED BY PELICAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a motion by the Pelican defendants (Pelican Communications, Inc. and Robert J. Scherer) to dismiss or stay the action for forum non conveniens. The motion is denied. Factual Summary Plaintiff MM Development Company (dba Planet 13) is a Nevada corporation that operates a marijuana dispensary in Las Vegas, Nevada.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CYNTHIA ELLEN TORRES VS EZE CHRISTOPHER BLAINE, ET AL.

The trial court in Landau granted the premises liability defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of misjoinder of the parties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a claim can be stated against two different sets of defendants so long as the plaintiff alleges (1) an injury, (2) negligence by successive tortfeasors, and (3) doubt as to which is liable, as required by CCP §379c.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

STEVEN YEARWOOD VS THE GROUNDLINGS THEATER AND SCHOOL

Rice (1) Defendant’s Demurrers (2) Motions to Strike (3) Motion to Dismiss or Post Bond (4) Motion for Sanctions Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 Moving Party: Defendant The Groundlings Theater and School Responding Party: none Ruling: Defendant’s demurrers are sustained without leave to amend. The motions to strike and motion to dismiss or post bond are moot. The motion for monetary sanctions against plaintiff is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROBILLARD V. FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

Fifth Cause of Action The opposition states that “Robillard does not contest the motion to dismiss as to the Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in violation of Public Policy.” (Oppo. p. 2, fn. 2.) Accordingly, the motion is granted for the reasons stated in the moving papers. Seventh Cause of Action The seventh cause of action alleges that defendants retaliated against plaintiff for reporting acts of sexual harassment by a surgeon employed by VCS. (FAC, ¶¶ 77-78.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

HANCOCK VS. SERVICELINK

Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and Fremont Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to CCP § 581(f)(2). (Shaffer Decl. at ¶ 8.) The Court granted the motion, dismissed the case against Fremont Bank with prejudice, and entered judgment against Plaintiff on June 12, 2019. (Shaffer Decl. at ¶ 10; RJN Ex. A.) Plaintiff did not appeal the judgment. (Shaffer Decl. at ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

TIGRAN HAKOBYAN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A CORPORATION

The motion to dismiss, however, is not entirely moot. One portion of the motion to dismiss address’ Plaintiff’s failure to join indispensable parties. This portion is targeted specifically on the initial complaint. Plaintiff has since added additional parties in the first amended complaint and, thus, this argument is moot. Yet, Moving Defendant’s argument that the forum is inconvenient does not rest upon Plaintiff’s initial complaint, but upon the selection of the forum.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MELKONIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. V. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA

May 30, 2013) [granting motion to dismiss under parol evidence rule].) Here, the parties’ Agreement is fully integrated. The membership applications identified in paragraph 9 contain a merger clause memorializing the parties’ agreement that “the Articles of Incorporation, the By-Laws now or hereafter in effect, this Membership Agreement, and any rules and regulations of SUN-MAID, constitute the entire agreement between SUN-MAID and [each plaintiff].” (See Stark Decl., Exs. 1A & 1B at ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

LISA BURCH ET AL VS INTEX CORP ET AL

As this is closely related, the court intends to refer this motion as well (unless the court is persuaded to grant the motion to dismiss, in which it will be placed off calendar as moot along with the motion to amend and the motion to unmask).

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

LIOR ADAR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Motion to Dismiss & Demurrer Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff Lior Adar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Jonathan Francisco Calderon. The complaint alleges negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on April 3, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 221     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.