How to File a Substitute or Corrected Brief?

Useful Rulings on Motion to File Substitute or Corrected Brief

Recent Rulings on Motion to File Substitute or Corrected Brief

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOHN A BATCHELOR COMP

Leader v. Health Industries of America Inc (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 620. “An attorney negligently fails to diligently prosecute an action. Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides that upon a proper motion the court shall vacate a default judgment or dismissal entered because of an attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Does that mean that a trial court may not dismiss an action for failure of the attorney to diligently prosecute the action under section 583.410? No.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

M.F. VS. CLAYTON VALLEY CHARTER

Daniels (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 224, 227; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613-14.) Such a dismissal is not mandatory, though. In Daniels, when the defendant filed the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff offered no excuse for her tardiness. Here she has. In Leader, the plaintiff amended one month after expiration of the deadline. Here the delay was one court day, explained by missing the filing cutoff the previous court day.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DEBRA SCHLESINGER GREENWOOD VS 1400 VENTURA BOULEVARD, INC

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Both the transcript and Minute Order indicate that this court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint as to the newly added defendants, FlashFrame, Inc. and The Photoshop, Inc. By including Defendants in the new cause of action against FlashFrame, Inc. and The Photoshop, Inc., the second amended complaint exceeded the scope of the court’s permission.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Thus, “[i]f an amended pleading is filed after the time allowed, an order striking the amended pleading must be obtained by noticed motion” to strike the improper pleadings. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(i).) As the Court has the discretion to “[s]trike 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.” (CCP § 436(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GROVES, ET AL. V. ZIEVE, BRODNAX & STEELE, ET AL.

(Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) The parties may join this court calendar remotely utilizing the following information: 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. calendar: Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87868480015?

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ADP, LLC, ET AL. VS ORNELAS & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 610; 621.) When a court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, the plaintiff may cure the defects in the existing causes of action but may not add a new cause of action unless he has obtained court permission, or the new cause of action is within the scope of the leave to amend order. (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE V. MHC PONDEROSA

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612–613.) Section 472(a) expressly states that a party’s single opportunity to amend a pleading without leave of court is conditioned upon filing the amendment before answer or demurrer, or after a demurrer is filed and the amendment is filed on or before the date that the opposition to the demurrer is required to be filed. Cross-Complainant did not comply with the conditional right to amend without leave of court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

COOLEY PLAZA, LLC V. BARRERA, ET AL.

(Leader v. Health Industries of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 615.) A court may grant discretionary relief upon the moving party’s showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. (Id. at pp. 615-616.) A court must grant mandatory relief upon a showing by an attorney declaration of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Id. at p. 616.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

BEATS ELECTRONICS LLC ET AL VS MONSTER LLC ET AL

(E.g., Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc., supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613 [“plaintiffs' failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed by the court subjected any subsequently filed pleading to a motion to strike, either by defendants or on the court's own motion”].) (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528 [bold emphasis added].) Rather, the challenges asserted by Beats may be asserted by way of motions in limine.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Thus, “[i]f an amended pleading is filed after the time allowed, an order striking the amended pleading must be obtained by noticed motion” to strike the improper pleadings. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(i).) As the Court has the discretion to “[s]trike 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.” (CCP § 436(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANCES YANEZ VS JOSE CHRISTOPHER VASQUEZ

Leader v. Health Industries of America Inc (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 620. “An attorney negligently fails to diligently prosecute an action. Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides that upon a proper motion the court shall vacate a default judgment or dismissal entered because of an attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Does that mean that a trial court may not dismiss an action for failure of the attorney to diligently prosecute the action under section 583.410? No.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

DELIA PERDUE ET AL VS MOBILE MODULAR DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Thus, “[i]f an amended pleading is filed after the time allowed, an order striking the amended pleading must be obtained by noticed motion” to strike the improper pleadings. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(i).) As the Court has the discretion to “[s]trike 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.” (CCP § 436(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHN SANDY CAMPBELL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 citing Gautier v. General Tel. Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 302, 310.) Here, Campbell has not previously amended his pleading without leave of the Court. Accordingly, the Court allows Plaintiff’s filing of the Amended Complaint/Petition for Writ of Mandate in lieu of filing an opposition to the instant demurrer. Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is MOOT. DATED: June 22, 2020 ________________________________ Hon.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PEOPLE V. MHC PONDEROSA

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612–613.) Section 472(a) expressly states that a party’s single opportunity to amend a pleading without leave of court is conditioned upon filing the amendment before answer or demurrer, or after a demurrer is filed and the amendment is filed on or before the date that the opposition to the demurrer is required to be filed. Cross-Complainant did not comply with the conditional right to amend without leave of court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

AXTELL V. CULVER

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613-614.) The court takes judicial notice that the court files reflect that plaintiffs did not file a 2nd amended complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

TITO ACE THOMAS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

(CCP § 581(f)(2); Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603. 613-614.)) Moving party shall lodge and serve a proposed Order of Dismissal as to defendant County of Los Angeles. The court intends to set an Order to Show Cause why the entire action should not be dismissed for failure to serve all remaining named defendants and Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a Case Management Conference. Notice of ruling by moving party.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

MULLIGAN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

(See Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 603, 612-613). The demurrers are sustained without leave to amend for failure to timely file the FAC and for Plaintiff’s failure to move the Court for permission to file the FAC. Id. 2) Statute of Limitations Has Passed The Complaint and FAC alleged in relevant part: “On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff experienced catastrophic brake failure, unable to stop his vehicle due to unresponsive brakes; Plaintiff crashed and suffered severe injuries.”

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

HEATHER C STOTTS VS ARTT LEDESMA ET AL

., §§ 472, 473; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) Some courts require that plaintiff file a noticed motion for leave (Leader, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 613), while others hold the court has discretion to accept the amended pleading without a noticed motion (Harlan v. Department of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 873). The Court has discretion to deny a motion to dismiss where plaintiff furnishes a sufficient excuse for the delay. (See Contreras v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

KYSA PAUL VS TARGET CORPORATION, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613.) “After expiration of the time in which a pleading can be amended as a matter of course, the pleading can only be amended by obtaining the permission of the court.” (Id. at 613.) With respect to amending a complaint after the time for such amendment as a matter of right has passed, a plaintiff must “file a noticed motion for leave.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

OMAR SPRY VS DARIN BRAWLEY, ET AL.

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 citing Gautier v. General Tel. Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 302, 310.) However, in this case, Defendants have not filed an objection. The Court will allow Plaintiff’s filing of the SAC in lieu of filing an opposition to the instant demurrer because Plaintiff has since dismissed all of the individual defendants such that the demurrer is now largely inapplicable and Defendants have not objected.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AFM & SAG-AFTRA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION FUND VS STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

(Leader v. Health Ind. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FLORES RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. V. VIVEROS

(Leader v. Health Industries of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 615-616.) Defendant carries the burden of establishing inadvertence, surprise, mistake or excusable neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. (Transit Ads, Inc. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 275, 279.) Defendant’s motion is timely. Defendant submitted a copy of her proposed answer. (ROA No. 52.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

ANNA SHULGA VS MARIA AURORA G. MATHAY, ET AL.

(Leader v. Health Ind. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

JAMES A SCOTT JR VS AVIS CAR RENTAL

(Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, ... in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding …” (CCP § 473(a)(1) (emphasis added).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

NEWSTART REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC VS 325 FLAMINGO LLC ET A

(Leader v. Health Ind. of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.