What is a Motion to Dismiss?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

Recent Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

SHARON A. SPERLING VS PAUL SPERLING, JR.

Sperling’s Motion to Dismiss Attorney is placed OFF CALENDAR. The Court notes that a valid Substitution of Attorney was filed on September 18, 2020 removing Plaintiff’s former attorney George M. Halimi, Esq. as counsel of record and substituting in Plaintiff as a self-represented party. Accordingly, the instant motion is moot. The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Gatewood’s (1) Motion to Dismiss; and (2) Motion to Set Aside Right To Attach Order And Release Attached Property are DENIED. Court clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAULID AMBARY, ET AL. V. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay All Proceedings or, in the alternative, Demurrer TENTATIVE RULING Defendant ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC. alternatively moves to dismiss or stay Plaintiffs MAULID AMBARY (“AMBARY”) and GABRIELA SANCHEZ’s (“SANCHEZ”) complaint against it under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on the basis that this action is duplicative of a class action suit SANCHEZ presently maintains against Defendant in federal court. Defendant additionally demurs to the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MICHAEL ABKARIAN VS AW COLLISION SCI ET AL

.: BC678654 Hearing Date: September 22, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendants Juan Martinez and joseph ibrahim’s Motion to dismiss Background On October 10, 2017, plaintiff Michael Abkarian (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against defendants AW Collision SC1 (“AW”), Joseph Ibrahim (“Ibrahim”), and Juan Martinez (“Martinez”) (collectively “Defendants”) for claims arising from Plaintiff’s employment with AW.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff is to file a new Fourth Amended Complaint within 20 days, stayed until the 9-25-20 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss set for 9-25-20. Procedural background includes but is not limited to that Plaintiff filed this action on 6-29-16. When the Third Amended Complaint was the operative pleading, on 7-8-20, the court sustained City’s demurrer to the 9th, 13th, 14th, 18th and 19th causes of action, while the Plaintiff had already dismissed the 15th, 16th and 17th causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

VELASQUEZ VS PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR BY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEF TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY ACTION PURSUANT TO FORUM BY PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF

In response, PCM filed this motion to dismiss or stay based upon the grounds that Plaintiff executed two Nondisclosure Agreements that contain a clear forum selection clause requiring any lawsuit brought against PCM, arising from plaintiff's purported employment with PCM, to be litigated in the federal or state courts located in Dallas County, Texas.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NORMANDIYA VS TECHSON ELECTRONICS, INC.

TENTATIVE RULING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY V TECHSON ELECTRONICS 20VECV00015 MOTION TO DISMISS 9/21/2020 MOTION IS GRANTED. THE COURT ORDERS CLERK OF THE COURT TO ENTER A JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 581(f)(2) IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR FAILING TO AMEND AFTER DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. THE DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED ON 6/29/2020 WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT ON 6/29/2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

HUBPER GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Vadim Kozin, and Ryan Hopkins’s Motion to Dismiss based on Inconvenient Forum is GRANTED. Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike are MOOT. All future hearing are vacated. Defendants are ordered to lodge a proposed Judgment within 20 days.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(1)(C). However, on July 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that his motion to dismiss be taken off calendar. On June 22, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Request for Dismissal and Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on July 7, 2020 and Defendant filed a Reply on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On May 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(1)(C). However, on July 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that his motion to dismiss be taken off calendar. On June 22, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Request for Dismissal and Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on July 7, 2020 and Defendant filed a Reply on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MANUEL CELEYA AGUILAR VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

On May 29, 2020, Defendant SEC filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Proof of personal service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Olivos was filed on July 21, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the instant Motion to Dismiss on September 8, 2020. Discussion Defendant SEC brings this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410 and 583.420, and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1340.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA ALVAREZ VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

On May 29, 2020, Defendant SEC filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Proof of personal service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendant Olivos was filed on August 14, 2020. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the instant Motion to Dismiss on September 8, 2020. Discussion Defendant SEC brings this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410 and 583.420, and Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1340.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PATRICIA A. MCALLISTER VS SHADI MORISSET, ET AL.

C/O: NONE TRIAL DATE: NOT SET PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL MOVING PARTY: Defendant Phase II Systems dba Public Agency Retirement Services RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO DISMISS (CCP § 1008; CRC 8.808) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Phase II Systems dba Public Agency Retirement Services’ Motion to Dismiss is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FUENTES V WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, LLC ET AL

MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION Defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to §581(f)(2) is granted, on th condition that a proof of service of the court’s order of September 15, 2020, setting the hearin on this motion, is filed at or before the hearing. MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCITON FO DOCUMENTS This motion is denied as moot. Even if the court was not prepared to dismiss th complaint, the motion is without merit.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PEGGY HILL VS UCLA, ET AL.

On March 24, 2020, Defendant Ami Ben-Artzi, M.D. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s action. On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants UCLA and Ami Ben-Artzi for (1) general negligence, seeking damages of $100,000,000.00. (SAC, ¶¶ 10, 14.) On July 21, 2020, the Court denied Defendant Ami Ben-Artzi, M.D.’s motion to dismiss the action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MARIA ALVAREZ VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

., et alMOTION TO DISMISS (CCP §§ 583.410, 583.420; CRC Rule 3.1340) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Southern California Edison Company’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.See tentative in case number `-+

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BARKER VS. COHEN

The sole factual allegation made in the present complaint is that defendant Middleton, acting on direction of defendant Cohen, filed a false declaration in support of Panda’s motion to dismiss, concerning whether plaintiff had complied with a court order in the Panda case to submit to an IME. On the face of the complaint, this allegation is completely covered by the litigation privilege codified at Civil Code § 47.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

THE MOTIVA GROUP INC VS GLOBAL IMPACT GROUP INC

Demurrer / Motion to Dismiss Contempt Count The Demurrer and Motion to dismiss the contempt count is overruled and denied. Paragraph 13 of the November 22, 2019 order (ROA # 355) appointing a receiver states: "13.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARINA HABA VS VICINO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Cross-Complainant requests this court take judicial notice of: (1) Joint Stipulation to resolve: (1) Motion for Relief from Stay; (2) Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Provide Releases by Debtor and Marina Haba (Exh. A); (2) Motion for an Order Approving Rule 9019 Settlement and Stipulation; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Declaration of Joe Wallace in Support Thereof (Exh.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MATTER OF CARRARI FAMILY TRUST, EST. FEBRUARY 28, 2002

The failure to file opposition to a motion to dismiss based upon the refusal to obey a court order compelling discovery, may warrant a presumption that the party has no meritorious argument. (See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

TENTATIVE RULING: (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay Under the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is GRANTED. There is another action by Plaintiff against Dr. Abraham currently pending in Ohio based on similar factual allegations – Dr. Abraham's interference with Plaintiff's employment relationship with Defendant BIOTHERANOSTICS, INC. ("Defendant"). Defendant seeks to have this case dismissed so that it can be heard along with Plaintiff's other action currently pending in Ohio.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EVANS HOTELS LLC VS TELESONIC VOICE AND DATA SOLUTIONS INC

Conclusion Unify's motion to dismiss Telesonic's FAXC against it is GRANTED. Unify's demurrer is moot. Unify is to give notice within two court days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GERACE VS BIOTHERANOSTICS INC

TENTATIVE RULING: (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay Under the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is GRANTED. There is another action by Plaintiff against Dr. Abraham currently pending in Ohio based on similar factual allegations – Dr. Abraham's interference with Plaintiff's employment relationship with Defendant BIOTHERANOSTICS, INC. ("Defendant"). Defendant seeks to have this case dismissed so that it can be heard along with Plaintiff's other action currently pending in Ohio.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DISCOVER BANK VS RANDALL STEVENS

Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Discovery Bank’s Motion to Strike the First Amended Cross-Complaint and Motion to Dismiss the Cross-Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAFAEL DAVID MIRANDA VS ANDRES CONTRERAS ET AL

The court takes judicial notice of: (1) proof of service of the summons and FAC on Paul Yalnezian, (2) proof of service of the summons and FAC on Michael Chitjian, (3) proof of service of summons and FAC by mail on Paul Yalnezian, Michael Chitjian and other named defendants, (4) a certified copy of a grant deed dated February 25, 2016, (5) a certified copy of a grant deed dated November 13, 2014, and (6) a copy of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss case against Plaintiffs for Reasons Offered filed in this action

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 232     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.