What is a Motion to Recover Costs?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Recover Costs

Recent Rulings on Motion to Recover Costs

226-250 of 10000 results

GONAZALES VS SUMMERS, ET. AL.

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY ALAN SUMMERS, SERONELLO-SUMMERS INC., * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant moves to strike two paragraphs from the first amended complaint (FAC), namely ¶ 16 relating to restitution and ¶ 17 relating to attorney fees. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

REVIEW RE: COMPLIANCE RE FILING ACCOUNTING.

SOWELL MIRIAM RUTH ARENDT Unable to review. File is unavailable at this time. Petitioners, maternal grandparents, still need to do the following: 1. Appear at the hearing 2. Provide proof of mailing to Christine Pickard 3. Proposed order Note: Pursuant to court’s order dated 8/1/2018, Petitioners previously moved the ward to Nevada and were ordered to transfer the guardianship to Nevada within four months of the move.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO APRV PMT OF COMPENSATION TO COUNSEL

One account through date of death and another through date of transfer to personal representative. PrC § 2620(b) 2. Revised, proposed Order to include name of trustee of trust and approximate amount of cash to be distributed to trustee. A judgment, decree or order must be complete in itself. LR 7.110 DONALD P O'CONNELL NATHAN D. PASTOR MAY H HILL

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

TIERNAN VS. DIABLO COMMUNITY S

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED JUDGMENT CCP 644.6 FILED BY WINSTON CERVANTES * TENTATIVE RULING: * This motion was continued last week to November 6. All parties are informed that effective January 1, 2021, this case is reassigned to Department 7 (Judge Baskin).

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

SUNGIIDORJ VS CCC HEALTH PLAN

HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY FILED BY PEYMAN KEYASHIAN MD * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Dr. Keyashian moves for summary judgment on this medical malpractice case. His evidence carries his burden of showing that his care did not fall below the standard of care. All parties are informed that effective January 1, 2021, this case is reassigned to Department 7 (Judge Baskin).

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

CHLOE SEGURA VS CHUCK E CHEESE ET AL

County has also complied with CCP § 1010 in making this motion. The motion papers were also served on the parties, including Skaggs’ counsel, on June 19, 2020 by mail. (See CCP § 438(i)(2).) As such, the Court finds that there is merit to granting this motion. CONCLUSION AND ORDER County’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to CCP § 438 is granted. The County is to recover its costs. The Court is ordered to submit a Proposed Judgment. County shall provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ASHKAN AFRAMIAN VS HERSEL NEMAN, ET AL.

If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BABAFEMI AKINFOLAJIMI , ET AL. VS GARDEN OAKS TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION INC

Discussion Defendant demurs, per Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivisions (e)&(f), to the second and fifth causes of action in Plaintiffs’ FAC, on the basis that they both fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action and are uncertain.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

KAM LP, ET AL. VS YGRENE, INC, ET AL.

(These documents are not attached to the FAXC.) Hatteras alleges that it paid Anchor timely, but was not required to make payments to KAM since payment to KAM would be from sale proceeds. (Id., ¶23.) Hatteras alleges that KAM filed a fraudulent Notice of Default against Hatteras, which forced Anchor to file a Notice of Default to protect its rights as a senior lienholder. (Id., ¶24.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADAM ALCANTARA VS RUDE DOG BAR & GRILL, INC., ET AL.

the harm that would be presented to patrons thereon.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE THE MATTER OF THE GALBRAITH FAMILY TRUST

Hearing PREGRANT ORDER Department 4’s courtroom is open to the public. However, because of emergency orders and public health directives related to the COVID-19 pandemic, appearances need not be in person, but they may be. If the court has an e-mail address on file for a petitioner, attorney or interested person, that person will receive an invitation to attend the hearing via Zoom.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

LEON ADJODHA VS ROBERT WRIGHT, ET AL.

Each partner agreed to contribute money, services, and/or expertise to the partnership. Plaintiff alleges that most of the money used to purchase or operate the premises came from a separate partnership between Wright and Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that on October 3, 2018, Larocca sold to Wright what they both purported to be Larocca’s 50% interest in the premises, when Larocca only had a 1/3 interest.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

PRESENTATION: Defendant filed the motion to compel production of documents, motion to compel form interrogatories – employment, and motion to compel form interrogatories – general on July 31, 2020. No opposition or reply has been received by the Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARTHUR AMBARACHYAN VS GEORGE PLAVJIAN, ET AL.

.: EC068660 Hearing Date: October 23, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel verified responses MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO RPD On August 10, 2020, [Plaintiff? Defendant?]Kakoian filed a motion to compel Plaintiff Arthur Ambarachyan’s initial responses to Requests for Production (“RPD”), set one. On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. On May 12, 2020, Kakoian served on Ambarachyan the RPD requests, such that responses were due by June 17, 2020. (J.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EVA SANDOVAL VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC., DBA SUPERIOR GROCERS

The Court imposes sanctions totaling $470.00 for both motions against Plaintiff Eva Sandoval for failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery, which is discovery abuse. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030.) Sanctions are payable to Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. dba Superior Grocers.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

LUZ ARACELI RIVERA VS JOHNATHON GOTZ

The Court imposes sanctions totaling $406.00 for both motions against Plaintiff for failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery, which is discovery abuse. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030.) Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MARK WEBB VS PREFERRED HOTEL GROUP INC ET AL

In sum, the motion is properly denied. CONCLUSION The motion for a preferential trial date is DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling. The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

MARILYN MEDINA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” Plaintiff contends that she needs to complete additional discovery to oppose the State’s Motion. Specifically, Plaintiff contends she needs the following: “a. information about inspections, repairs, and maintenance conducted on the subject area where the incident happened. b.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

HERNANDEZ VS. THANDI

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RULING: Defendants Satnam Singh Thandi and Prime Time Shuttle, Inc.’s motion to consolidate this case with Sharon Wang v. Bernard Hernandez, et al., Orange County Superior Court case number 30-2019-01085742-CU-PO-CJC and Muhammad Pervez v. Satnam Singh Thandi, et al., Orange County Superior Court case number 30-2019-01091438-CU-PA-CJC is CONTINUED to 01/22/2021 at 09:00 AM in this department to permit Moving Party to file the notice of motion in the related actions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

EDWARDS – NAME CHANGE

Motion to Vacate The Motion to Vacate Request for Name Change is Granted. Petitioner Jacob Etan Joseph Edwards (here “MP”) has represented that the prior Petition was presented in error, when he was not a CA resident. Under In re Forchion (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1315, as C.C.P. § 1276(a) fixes venue in the superior court of the county where the petitioner resides, that suggests that CA residency is a prerequisite to filing a petition. If so, that prerequisite was not met here.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

IN RE: NAVA

His declaration provides no information as to diligent efforts to locate the documents, but he does note that the settlement was reached just three years ago (strongly suggesting the documents should be readily accessible). The amended petition only supplants the Purchase Contract, and again makes no mention of the missing documents.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

TREMBLAY VS. CENTAURUS FINANCIAL, INC.

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Petitioner Troy Tremblay’s (“Petitioner”) unopposed Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, is Granted as follows. (C.C.P. §§ 1285, 1286.) The Petition comports with C.C.P. § 1285.4, and sufficiently demonstrates that the arbitrator’s Award attached as Exhibit C to the Stansbury Declaration, should be confirmed in favor of Petitioner and as to respondent Centaurus Financial, Inc. (“Respondent”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

M.A. CIRILLO & ASSOCIATES VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

JMS’s counsel declares that the delayed filing was due to her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (See Stelnick Decl. ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to accept the late-filed complaint. (See Harlan v. Department of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 875 [when leave to amend is granted, the court has discretion to accept a late-filed pleading without a noticed motion].) Defendant JMS to give notice. Motion for Reconsideration.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

RAFI VS. MONTGOMERY

No sanctions will be issued because the motion was brought with substantial justification. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

MELISSA C. CLARK VS. CHERYL REDMOND

The court declared Defendant to be the prevailing party and directed her to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and a memorandum of costs. On 1/14/20, Defendant served Plaintiff with Notice of Entry of Judgment. On 1/28/20, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs. On 3/9/20, Defendant filed and served the instant motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to CC 1717.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.