What is a Motion to Recover Costs?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Recover Costs

Recent Rulings on Motion to Recover Costs

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

With respect to the first question, the Court concludes that Section 13.2(f) does not preclude SARVS from attempting to obtain compensation for any alleged loss of goodwill. Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

It is unlike the case authorities cited by Turner where parties were seeking to recover purely economic damages arising from alleged defects, such as repair costs to avoid potential future harm from defective construction or products. Here, the alleged defects caused water and other damage to walls, windows, ceilings, etc.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

Petitioners shall recover their costs in this proceeding in the amount of $_____.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Plaintiff Francisco Velazquez’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kim D. Stephens, Gregory F. Coleman, Paul C. Peel, Jason T. Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for February 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

CEMEX USA, INC. VS ATILANO, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The following defects are noted: Plaintiff is “Cemex USA, Inc.;” however, the “Credit Application and Agreement” attached as Exhibit A to the complaint and as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Glen Hansen (“Hansen”) references “CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” at the top of Page 1 and does not appear to make any reference to Cemex USA, Inc. Hansen’s declaration also refers to “Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC” as Plaintiff. It would appear that a substitution of plaintiff is needed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for January 15, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Liu”) entered into an oral contract, wherein Liu agreed to wire funds that Plaintiff provided to Liu to an account at JP Morgan Chase Bank. Liu failed to wire $930,000.00 of these funds. On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against X. Liu (“Liu”), Shi Qiang Zhang (“S. Zhang”), Lina Zhang (“L. Zhang”) and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Fraud Conversion Common Counts (i.e., Money Had and Received) On November 9, 2019, X. Liu’s and S.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHAEL PHAM, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH PHAM, ET AL. VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

The Motion for Summary Judgment will not be heard on this date in Department 28. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse, as of 11/13/20.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

Upon that review, it appears that this Court does not have jurisdiction to issue a judgment of more than $800,000 for the following reasons: The First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FACC") states in its prayer for relief that it seeks "actual damages in excess of $800,000" and "actual damages that continue to accrue to be proven at trial" along with prejudgment interests, and other costs and fees.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

AVITUS INC. VS ANDIAMO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment and a Case Management Conference are set for December 18, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: Plaintiff alleged that Andiamo “on or about 08/30/2017, Defendants . . . defaulted under the terms of the CONTRACT by failing to pay the entire balance of money due to the Plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶9.) Plaintiff’s Chief Financial Officer, J.J.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

HASMIK KANATARYAN, ET AL. VS CHARLENE SARSTEDT, ET AL.

The following order was made on 10-20-20 and sent to Plaintiff's counsel.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS TOTAL BODY EXPERTS LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) and seeks summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Total Body Experts LLC and Marc Erickson. The Motion is unopposed and asserts that Defendants: (1) have not asserted any meritorious affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s causes of action; and (2) have not offered any evidence to counter Plaintiff’s claims. Due to the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KOEN WOO KIM VS CENTRAL FITNESS, LP, ET AL.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. Dated this 11th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF AMENDED FIRST ACCT & RPT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE,

FOR FEE FILED ON 07/15/19 BY EDWARD W HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Proof of mailing Inventory and Appraisal to Inheritance Funding Company, Inc., who requested special notice, or waiver of notice. PrC § 1202 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE LLOYD W HARRICH TRUST

FILED ON 08/31/18 BY MICHELLE WEBBER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

FILED ON 10/16/19 BY MONICA L HARRICH-GRISWOLD, JESSICA J HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST & FNL ACCT & RPT OF ADMNTR & PET’N FOR SETTLEMENT & FNL DIST

FILED ON 08/19/20 BY JAMES A WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Declaration addressing creditor claim filed by Far Hills MHP on 8-2-19 for $5,000.00. PrC § 10900; CRC § 7.403. 2. Proposed Order JAMES A WALTERS DANIEL T. QUANE, ESQ. RALPH EDWIN WALTERS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in Vol. 3. Need: 1. Appearances to report status, including 9-8-2020 order to meet and confer 2.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS REGARDING ACCOUNTING OBJECTION

FILED ON 11/06/19 BY MONICA L HARRICH-GRISWOLD, JESSICA J HARRICH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including 9-10-2020 order to meet and confer, and mediation

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE BOWERMAN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST

RE: PET’N FOR REMOVAL AND APPOINTMENT FILED ON 10/04/19 BY JANICE BOWERMAN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Moving paper is in confidential folder. Need appearances to report status, including 9-8-2020 order to meet and confer Note: Petition filed under seal pursuant to Order filed 11-6-19. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Ned: 1. Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice, including Atty.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SHAFIQ SIDIQI VS GAYANE BALABANYAN

.: 19STLC06257 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: December 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, filed by Defendant Miriam Rodriguez, scheduled for 12/10/2020 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 12/22/2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: 19STLC06257 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: December 10, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, filed by Defendant Miriam Rodriguez, scheduled for 12/10/2020 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 12/22/2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Dated this 10th day of December 2020 Hon. Holly J.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

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.