What is a motion to suppress?

“[O]n a seasonable motion to suppress the deposition, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, the court may determine that the reasons given for the failure or refusal to approve the transcript require rejection of the deposition in whole or in part.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.520.)

Rule 5-220 states that an attorney shall not suppress evidence that he or his client has a legal obligation to produce. Lawyers are subject to discipline for participating in the suppression or destruction of evidence. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6106, 6077; Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 5-220 (member shall not suppress evidence member has legal obligation to reveal or produce).)

The court has the inherent power to “provide orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers” and to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” (Id., § 128.)

“Our discovery statutes are designed to ascertain the truth, not suppress it.” (Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Mishin) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 837.) “Any doubt about discovery is to be resolved in favor of disclosure.” (Id.; see also Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Nexbio, Inc.) (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1346-1347, citing and discussing Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 835-837.)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Suppress – Civil

Recent Rulings on Motion to Suppress – Civil

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

There is a general rule against enjoining public officers or agencies from performing their duties. This rule would not preclude a court from enjoining unconstitutional or void acts, but to support a request for such relief the plaintiff must make a significant showing of irreparable injury.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 1471.)

  • Hearing

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Rulings on Evidentiary Objections The Court DECLINES to rule on all of the parties’ objections because "the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion." (CCP § 437c(q).). In this regard, Saddleback’s Objection No. 8 (page 15 of ROA 2642) to the Patel Declaration is sustained as to the phrase “and others representing 5th Rock T-12” on the grounds of hearsay and otherwise is overruled.

  • Hearing

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3). The hearings on the applications are continued to 7/19/19 to allow the applicants to provide supplemental information regarding the foregoing factors. The supplemental information should be submitted by 7/12/19. No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, contingent upon Plaintiff’s production of the original promissory note to the court for cancellation in compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1806 (i.e., “[i]n all cases in which judgment is rendered upon a written obligation to pay money, the clerk must, at the time of entry of judgment, unless otherwise ordered, note over the clerk’s official signature and across the face of the writing the fact of rendition of judgment

  • Hearing

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

In such case, the Local Rule 3.214(a) applies and the Court orders the Cross-Complainant to revise and reduce the amount in accordance with the rule and the new compensatory damage. Clerk to give notice _____________________________ Dennis J. Landin, Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

There is no indication that Alison Shao is qualified interpreter pursuant to California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.110(g) (i.e., “[e]xhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter;” see also Evidence Code § 751 and Government Code § 68561.) The Certificates of Translation by Shao Lin are similarly deficient.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under CCP § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under CCP § 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUZ BELTRAN, ET AL. VS NICHOLAS SCHWARTZ, ET AL.

It is unclear whether or not Plaintiffs have complied with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1806 by producing the original promissory notes to the court [i.e., “In all cases in which judgment is rendered upon a written obligation to pay money, the clerk must, at the time of entry of judgment, unless otherwise ordered, note over the clerk’s official signature and across the face of the writing the fact of rendition of judgment with the date of the judgment and the title of the court and the case.”]

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JASON STANDIFORD VS CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY INSULATION, INC.

“This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) DISCUSSION Allied demurs under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(d) and (e), arguing that it was improperly joined to this liability action. A suit against an insurer and its insured cannot proceed in the same action and must be filed as a separate action. (See Royal Indemnity Co. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FUNDATION GROUP LLC VS BINH NGUYEN, ET AL.

The court reduces attorney’s fees to $2,005.74, per Local Rule 3.214. ANALYSIS Yes (11/18/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

SIMON RUIZ-HERNANDEZ VS WALTER ZAMORA, ET AL.

(Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is the breakdown of Counsel’s relationship with Plaintiff, which constitutes good cause. Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted. The Court provides notice to Plaintiff that he must address the outstanding discovery, as Defendant has filed the following motions: (1) Motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, and (2) Motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents.

  • Hearing

MARIAN A ANDERSON VS SHERMAN OAKS HOSPITAL, ET AL.

“This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) DISCUSSION To state a claim, Plaintiff must be the real party in interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.)

  • Hearing

CHRISTIAN SEYMOUR VS WINGSTOP RESTAURANTS,INC., ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.) Defendant served the subpoena by mail and proffers no evidence that Mr. Coe agreed to service in this manner. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: December 2, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4) and (d).) The lodged record is conditionally under seal pending the judge's determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARIELA DIAZ, ET AL. VS JOHN RUBEN RAMOS COVARRUBIAS, ET AL.

(Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is that Plaintiff is not cooperative with Counsel, which constitutes good cause. Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted.

  • Hearing

CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSN ET AL VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF MOTO

Issue No.1: Untimeliness California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1) provides that a prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(Local Rule, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).) If an unlimited civil action does not fall within the scope of a Personal Injury Action, such action can be filed in the Central District. (Local Rule, Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).) Issue No.1: Proper Filing Location The Civil Case Cover Sheet states that this action is described as “Other PI/PD/WD” and therefore the Court finds that this action is a Personal Injury Action.

  • Hearing

JOSE ZARAGOZA-HERNANDEZ VS DOROTHY MENDOZA

(Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is that Counsel’s relationship with Plaintiff has deteriorated, which constitutes good cause. Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted.

  • Hearing

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

Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

  • Hearing

MICHAEL WATT VS RODEWAY INN HOTEL, ET AL.

(Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The basis for this motion is irreconcilable differences in Counsel’s relationship with Plaintiff, which constitutes good cause. Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted. The Court orders Plaintiff’s counsel to serve a copy of this order, as well as a copy of the Court’s order on Form MC-053, upon all parties including Plaintiff within ten (10) days. The Court orders Plaintiff’s counsel to file proof of service within twenty (20) days.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF DOROTHY E. BENFORD

Because an amended petition is required, and because such petition cannot be re-served pursuant to CRC, Rule 7.53 in the time before the hearing, it is recommended that the matter be continued to October 27, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. unless the party appears and requests a different date, or submits a request for a different continuance date prior to the hearing. (Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).) If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered.

  • Hearing

SHAFFER V RICE RANCH COMMUNITY LLC

Oral Argument Not Required Pursuant to California Rules of Court, 3.1308 (a)(1) and Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rule 1301, the court does not require a hearing; oral argument will be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. (Department 2) the day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear. This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if notice of intent to appear has not been given.

  • Hearing

JENNIFER HERRINGTON V THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ET AL

On August 10, 2020, Judge Colleen Sterne transferred the matter to North County pursuant to Local Rule 203. On August 11, 2020, an Order and Notice of Case Re-Assignment was issued, assigning the case to Judge Timothy J. Staffel. On August 21, 2020, plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Staffel. The case was thereafter assigned to this department by order dated August 26, 2020.

  • Hearing

MIKE GHOLAMI, ET AL. VS VICTOR DANIEL FELIXOROZCO

(Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) Counsel establishes good cause to grant the motion. Based upon the foregoing, Counsel’s motion is granted. The Court orders Counsel to provide notice to all parties, including Plaintiff, within ten (10) days, and file proof of such with the Court. Counsel should note that he shall remain attorney of record until he files the proof of service of the signed order. DATED: December 1, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

HAROULA SPYROPOULOUS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

Therefore, the causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations unless Plaintiff can invoke the delayed discovery rule. Issue No.2: The Delayed Discovery Rule When a complaint shows on its face or on the basis of judicially noticed facts that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, the plaintiff must plead facts which show an excuse, tolling, or some other basis for avoiding the statutory bar. (Ponderosa Homes, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1768.)

  • Hearing

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.