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

    Sep 29, 2030

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

    Apr 25, 2026

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

    Jun 20, 2021

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

The following defects are noted: Plaintiff has not submitted a summary of the case, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1). Plaintiff has not provided the court with the Loan Sale Agreement between WebBank and Upgrade, Inc. and the assignment/transfer of interest between Upgrade, Inc. and Plaintiff. ANALYSIS Yes (1/16/20) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

(See California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113.) ANALYSIS Yes (3/27/19; 8/7/19) 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

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

(CRC Rule 2.550(d).) “An order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” (CRC Rule 2.550(e)(1) [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

The court requests that any further application for default prove-up be full and complete in and of iteself, including all documents enumerated in California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800. Plaintiff “requests that the Court award him reasonable attorney fees if the Plaintiff is able to prove the intentional misrepresentation cause of action against the Defendants.” (Supplemental Application, 3:15-16.) Plaintiff has not provided the court with any legal authority in support of this statement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

Kim demurs to the complaint on the ground Plaintiff Kourosh Izadpanahi’s claims are time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations even with application of the delayed discovery rule. Under the delayed discovery rule, “the accrual date of a cause of action is delayed until the plaintiff is aware of his or her injury and its cause.” (Brandon G. v. Gray (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 29, 35.) Here, Plaintiff alleges he was unaware of his injuries until 2019, despite the sale of the property in June 2016.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

11TH STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC VS TARYN ROSE

Finally, Plaintiff must file an amended JUD-100 form that matches the amended request for default judgment as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(6).

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOHENY NIGHTINGALE LLC ET AL VS RAVEN RIDGE DEVELOPMENT LLC

Raven Ridge must file and serve the Notice of Related Case in compliance with Rule 3.300 within 15 days of this order. Raven Ridge to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LOREN NAUTA V. SUSAN MURPHY

Rules of Court, rule 3.650.) Murphy does not address the bankruptcy proceedings in the motion. However, the proof of service attached to both supplemental oppositions shows a scrivener’s error on the zip code for Murphy’s attorney. It is, therefore, unclear whether Murphy was properly served with those documents. The parties are directed to appear and update the Court on the status of the bankruptcy proceedings. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.650(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

Plaintiff did not submit an opposition raising any argument as to why the allegations underling this action are distinct from those raised in the previous action, such that the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not apply.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Alternatively, if this Court were to “rule in favor of Plaintiff on a summary judgment motion finding Defendants committed fraud, that finding would be inconsistent with or otherwise ‘affect’ the Order being reviewed on appeal.” Plaintiff further argues that a stay is warranted because: (1) proceedings in this Court pending appeal could lack subject matter jurisdiction, and thus be void and reversible; and (2) it would serve the interests of judicial economy. The Court disagrees.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

RUTH XIAOYU ZHANG VS NESTOR H. LLERNA

Legal Standard “[T]he party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case . . . is entitled to costs on appeal” (California Rules of Court [“CRC”] Rule 8.278(a)(1).) “The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal” (CRC Rule 8.278(a)(2).) “Unless the court orders otherwise, an award of costs neither includes attorney’s fees on appeal nor precludes a party from seeking them under rule 3.1702.” (CRC Rule 8.278(d)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(c)(2).) Discussion Each of Plaintiff’s causes of action is considered separately. 1. CFRA Interference Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for interference with his right to medical leave under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”). The CFRA provides that eligible employees may take up to twelve weeks of leave in a 12-month period to care for, among other things, an employee’s own “serious health condition.” (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2, subd (a), (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

(Local Rule 3.223(a).) Judgment Creditor provides an appraisal report by Anthony Whitmarsh of A.D. Whitmarsh Appraisal issued as of July 2, 2018, which appraises the Property at $900,000.00. (Id., ¶13, Exh. 9.) Judgment Creditor has also submitted a litigation guarantee. (Id., ¶8, Exh. 6.) Judgment Creditor attaches demand letters to, and responses from, lienholders, which were used to determine the total number and amount of liens on the Property. (Id., ¶12, Exh. 8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

MATTER OF ALBERT AND PATRICIA BUSSE TRUST

The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver. The following is noted for the court: Petitioner’s reliance on the disinheritance clause in the pour-over wills in this case is not persuasive. No authority cited by Petitioner stands for a proposition that a disinheritance clause stands supreme over the anti-lapse statutory scheme, as suggested by Petitioner.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ESTATE OF LAURA CHAPA

(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. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ESTATE OF LAURA CHAPA

(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. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ESTATE OF HAROLD NELSON GRAY

(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. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 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 gather your results.