What is a Motion to Offset?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Offset

Recent Rulings on Motion to Offset

YORAM YEHUDA ET AL VS ARTURO RUBINSTEIN ET AL

(1) MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENT; (2) THIRD-PARTY PARVIZ FAKHERI aka PARIS FAKHERI’S MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENT STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to reimbursement of his capital contributions pursuant to an oral joint venture agreement by Defendants pertaining to the flipping of real property after the property had been sold for a profit. Defendants Arturo Rubenstein and Fab Rock Investments move to offset the judgment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

YORAM YEHUDA ET AL VS ARTURO RUBINSTEIN ET AL

DISCUSSION: Motion To Offset Judgment Requests for Judicial Notice Defendants request judicial notice of (A) the judgment in this action, entered March 11, 2019; (B) a minute order entered in this action on July 1, 2019; (C) a stipulation and order re: costs entered in this action on July 12, 2019; (D) the final judgment entered in Rubenstein v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EBRAHIMI-ADIB VS CATSIAPIS

In that order, the New York Civil Court states: Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order defendant's motion to offset and reduce the judgment in this action, is as follows: Plaintiff holds a judgment in this action against defendant in the principal sum of $13,575.00. Defendant alleges that she holds a judgment against plaintiff in the principal amount of $11,140.00, arising out of Andrino Koljevina v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Enforcement

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. SCOTT SMITH ET AL

s motion to offset any costs that might be awarded in favor of defendant Scott Smith against its lien is denied. Per Margott v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1973) 34 Cal. App. 3d 849, 856 and CCP 708.470(a), the court exercises its discretion to require Entrepreneur Media to pay the full amount of the costs awarded to Mr. Scott directly to him rather than as an offset against the debt Mr. Smith owes to it.

  • Hearing

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. SCOTT SMITH ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Offset Any Costs That The Court Might Award In Favor Of Scott Smith To And Against, To The Extent Awarded, The Judgment In Favor Of Entrepreneur Media, Inc.

  • Hearing

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. SCOTT SMITH ET AL

S Motion To Offset Any Costs That The Court Might Award In Favor Of Scott Smith To And Against, To The Extent Awarded, The Judgment In Favor Of Entrepreneur Media, Inc. Entered In The Usdc Cd Cal., And Application Of Any Possible Cost Award As An Offset Against Emis Lien Under Ccp Section 708.470(A); And Stay Of Enforcement Under The Cost Award Under Ccp Section 708.440(A). Plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc.'s motion to offset any costs that the court might award is granted.

  • Hearing

ONALIS GIUNTA VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (34-2012-00137019) Motion to Offset Damages Defendant State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's ("CDCR") Motion to Offset Damages is GRANTED. CDCR moves to offset Plaintiff Onalis Giunta's ("Plaintiff") economic damages by $34,690, which is the amount of her worker's compensation award.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RUNEZ VS GROVER

MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments CROSS COMPLAINANT GUY SEATON; MOTION To Offset Cross-Judgments HEARING REQUIRED (302/REQ/RS)

  • Hearing

RUNEZ VS GROVER

MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments COURT APPLIES OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF $115,324.56 OF $570,000.00 AGAINST SEATON JUDGMENT OF $219,503.20. $104,179 IS THEN DEDUCTED FROM $320,088.00 LEAVING BALANCE OWING BY SEATON TO RUNEZ OF $215,909.00. (302/AJR/RS)

  • Hearing

RUNEZ VS GROVER

MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments CONTINUED TO 11/26: MOVING PARTY TO LODGE COURTESY COPIES PER LOCAL RULE 8.5. PLEASE ATTACH COVER LETTER CONFIRMING NEW HEARING DATE. (302/AJR/ju)

  • Hearing

RUNEZ VS GROVER

MOTION Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments MOTION TO OFFSET CROSS-JUDGMENTS DENIED. AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO BE OFFSET NOT ESTABLISHED. (302/AJR/AA)

  • Hearing

1

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.