What is a Motion to Extend the Time Within Which an Action Must Be Brought to Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Extend the Time Within Which an Action Must Be Brought to Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion to Extend the Time Within Which an Action Must Be Brought to Trial

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

And, even if it were added to the pleading, it would fail as a matter of law for the reasons explained above. The cases relied upon by Plaintiffs, including Marina Tenants Association v. Deauville Marina Dev. Co. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 122, Gilbert Fin. Corp. v. Steelform Contracting Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 65, and Shell v. Schmidt (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 279, do not support Plaintiffs’ third-party beneficiary theory. These cases confirm that incidental beneficiaries are not entitled to sue under a contract.

  • Hearing

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

Plaintiffs have 20 days to file and serve their amended pleading. Demurrer to FAC A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MATTER OF DOMAGUING FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

Provide a revised, proposed order that includes the legal description and APN of the real property Note: Petitioner’s responsive declaration dated 10/19/2020 needs to be filed with the Court Clerk in order to be considered by the Court DOMAGUING FAMILY REVOCABLE TRU JANINE KIKKERT FILED ON 08/06/20 BY MARCUS ALDERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -Moving paper in Volume 2- Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BETTY SCHILLING, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Defendants shall file an answer or a responsive pleading within 45 days of notice of this order. Plaintiffs shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: December 2, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

HAIM¿ AHRONI VS LISA¿ DIANE HARPER, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

SHAFFER V RICE RANCH COMMUNITY LLC

As noted above, a demurrer can be used to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) Since the court has taken judicial notice of the date, it may be used to challenge the pleading. Plaintiffs assert that “facts show without question that Shea Homes made numerous and ongoing attempts to repair the construction defects at the Shaffers’ home.” (Opposition, p. 2, ll. 18-19.)

  • Hearing

JENNIFER HERRINGTON V THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ET AL

The pleading does not allege that the TNC-CA hired plaintiff, set her compensation, or maintained any personnel records for her. It does not allege TNC-CA compensated her. (Vernon, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 126—“The absence of any direct or indirect remuneration from the defendant to the plaintiff, while not controlling, is at least strong evidence that an employment relationship did not exist.”)

  • Hearing

DAVID LAHYANI VS ROBERT SCOTT REHLING ET AL

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider facts asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer]; see also Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar.

  • Hearing

JINKUN CHA, ET AL. VS PACIFIC EXPRESSWAY, INC., A CORPORATION , ET AL.

Legal Standard A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading (complaint, answer or cross-complaint). (CCP §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

XIAOXING ZHANG VS ZHE ZHANG, ET AL.

.)¿¿¿ The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a)). The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

“‘[T]he courts should not . . . seek to absolve the defendant from liability on highly technical requirements of form in pleading. Pleading facts in ordinary and concise language is as permissible in fraud cases as in any others, and liberal construction of the pleading is as much a duty of the court in these as in other cases.’” (Appollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 242.)

  • Hearing

SHEILA I¿IGUEZ VS BENIHANA MARINA CORP.

Legal Standard “Before filing a demurrer . . . the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading . . . for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) A party may demur to a pleading when “There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(c).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MIRNA VILLANUEVA, ET AL. VS LAUREN LEE

The burden is on Plaintiffs to show in what manner he or she can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.) In opposition, Plaintiffs request leave to amend because the complaint is capable of being cured. The court finds there is a reasonable possibility the complaint can be amended to state a claim for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

ODALYS FACIO BRISENO VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE), A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY, E

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider facts asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer]; see also Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar.

  • Hearing

JIN HONG VS MICHELLE KIM, ET AL.

If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.

  • Hearing

HENRY ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ VS MICHELE BRAVO, ET AL.

“A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number

  • Hearing

ORLI SANTOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS LA PROPERTIES HEFFESSE LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Issue No.1: Procedural Non-Compliance California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 sets forth the necessary requirements for a sufficient motion to amend a pleading.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BEATRIZ CASTRO VS SHRUJA HOSPITALITY INC

Defendant was served on October 28, 2019, and Defendant did not file an answer or responsive pleading within the statutory deadline. Therefore, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment for January 29, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. The Court orders Plaintiff to file her request for entry of default and request for entry of default judgment on or before January 4, 2021. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

  • Hearing

SAINT GEORGE INSURANCE VS. TITANIUM INTERMODAL

Once the Discovery Facilitation process is complete, if the Defendant wishes to pursue its motion to compel, it should file a pleading to that effect on or before January 6, 2020. Plaintiff shall file its response on or before January 14, 2020. The parties are advised that as of January 4, 2021 this case will be assigned to Department 36 (Judge Clare Maier) for all purposes. The courts of Contra Costa will close early on November 25, 2020 the date of the issuance of this tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

BLANCA Y NAVARRO, ET AL. VS ROBERT WU, ET AL.

In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BLUE TOWN, LLC VS SOUTHWEST SERVICES GROUP, LLC, ET AL.

A motion to strike can be made to strike irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading or to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of the court. (§ 436.) Discussion Plaintiff moves to strike Southwest’s and RT’s answers, on the grounds that both corporate entities are impermissibly self-representing, and because RT is a suspended corporation.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

K. V. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Based on the record before the Court, the Court finds that the District did violate the Court’s order by not producing the responsive documents until well after the Court-imposed deadline. However, the Court does not find that the District’s conduct amounted to a willful violation of the Discovery Order. Granted, it appears the District’s search for relevant and responsive documents was not as thorough as it could – and should – have been.

  • Hearing

CARLOS ANTHONY LOPEZ VS THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

Legal Standard A demurrer may be made on the grounds that, inter alia, the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or that the pleading is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YANG NAM KIM VS KOREA SENIOR CITIZENS MUTUAL CLUB, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

“‘[T]he courts should not . . . seek to absolve the defendant from liability on highly technical requirements of form in pleading. Pleading facts in ordinary and concise language is as permissible in fraud cases as in any others, and liberal construction of the pleading is as much a duty of the court in these as in other cases.’” (Appollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 242.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANDREW COCHRAN VS CP IV PARTHENIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The alleged failure to both properly conduct repairs and subsequent alleged refusal to complete said repairs supports the claim for punitive damages for purposes of the subject motion reviewing the pleading. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1); See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 899.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.