What is a Notice of Lodging?

The court calls for a Notice of Lodging in several circumstances. e.g., proposed orders, trial exhibits, original wills, financial statements, and relief of counsel.

The Notice of Lodging requirements vary by county. For example, here's San Diego's lodging procedure for trial:

  1. A Notice of Intent to Lodge Documents (form SDSC D-235 or in pleading form) listing the name or description of the exhibit must be filed and timely served with the moving, opposition and reply papers
  2. The documents themselves must be lodged with the court no sooner than 10 court days and no later than three court days prior to the hearing, absent a court order
  3. Lodged documents will be stamped "received" by the court.
  4. Lodged documents must be tabbed to correlate to the notice of lodgment.
  5. A conformed copy of the notice of lodgment must be the face page of the lodged documents.

(The rest of the San Diego's trial lodging rules can be found here.)

For more information inquire with your court.

Useful Resources for Notice of Lodging

Recent Rulings on Notice of Lodging

ZEPPOS V. BRANDMAN UNIVERSITY

Plaintiff is directed to electronically submit Exhibits A-R (referenced in Plaintiffs Notice of Lodging Appendix of Evidence, filed on 1-5-21 under ROA No. 141with the court no later than 1-18-21. The exhibits can be conditionally submitted under seal pending the Court’s determination of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Seal Evidence filed on 1-5-21 under ROA No. 140.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

XIN ZHANG ET AL VS CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT IMMIGRATION FUND LL

She states that after filing the action on September 4, 2018, she filed the application for publication for each Plaintiff on July 9, 2019, the Court signed the orders on December 18, 2019, she telephonically appeared to the CMC on March 9, 2020 (which was continued to June 22, 2020), and she filed the Notice of Lodging of Plaintiff’s Proof of Publication re Service of Summons (of the Complaint) and Statement of Damages Upon Defendants on April 21, 2020. (Id., ¶¶6-9.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KRASYUK VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

The clerk is ordered to unseal the Notice of Lodging at ROA 247. The Court previously continued this motion for Wells Fargo to make a “specific showing of serious injury” that will result if Exhibit 2 were unsealed. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1282.) The Court has reviewed the supplemental brief and accompanying Declaration of Miranda Barnes. In support of the request to seal Exhibit 2, Ms.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

However, on Dec. 22, 2020 Loeb only filed a “Notice of Lodging-Documents Under Seal,” not the confidential document itself. There is a procedure for the electronic filing of a confidential record, but Loeb has not followed it. Nevertheless, because the court has been provided with a courtesy copy of the confidential document with the notice of lodging, the court will file the confidential document sua sponte to assure an accurate record.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

INNOVATIVE FUND I, L.P. VS. THE NOTTINGHAM COMPANY, INC.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice and Notice of Lodging filed with the court do not include the records for which judicial notice is sought. Defendant Sanville & Company to file an amended Notice of Lodging that includes copies of the records and a copy of the declaration submitted with the Reply within seven days. No further briefing. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

NANCY BLANCHE CLANTON VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPAN

On September 30, 2020, Defendants filed a “Notice of Lodging [Exhibits] in Support of State Farm’s MSJ,” which purports to attach Exhibits A through Q in support of the motion. It is apparent from Plaintiff’s opposition papers that Plaintiff is in possession of the evidence submitted in support of Defendants’ motion. However, none of the referenced exhibits are currently present within the Court’s electronic records, nor were physical copies delivered to Department 49.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KEENE VS AAA

Friedlander; and (4) Notice of Lodging Unredacted Documents (While duplicate entries appear on the Open Access online docket with respect to (2) and (3) above, the Court’s file only contains one of each.) Both (2) and (3) are redacted and therefore not complete. The Memorandum of Points and Authorities included redacted text. The Declaration of Steven L. Friedlander omitted the following exhibits: 1, 6, 8, 11-16, 19-21, 23-31, and 34.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

JAY W. CALVERT, , AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS FOX TELEVISION STATIONS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The Court received the two Video Discs pursuant to the KTTV Defendants’ Notice of Lodging of Digital Video Discs In Support of Special Motion to Strike (Exhibits 1 and 3). However, the Court was unable to open the contents of both Discs and is working on possible technological assistance. In the meantime, the Court orders the KTTV Defendants to lodge and serve a transcript of the contents of both Discs (See California Rules of Court, rule 2.1040(b).) A certified transcript is not required. d.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

MARIA PARRA SARIANANA VS HONG HOLDINGS LLC

Exhibit D to the Defendant’s Notice of Lodging of Exhibits contains the Public Event License Agreement between AEG Live LA, LLC, and the Defendant. Paragraph 8 on page 5 contains the following indemnification clause: 8. Indemnification.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

PANAYIOTIS GEORGE SKORDI VS THE NOVO ET AL

Exhibit D to the Defendant’s Notice of Lodging of Exhibits contains the Public Event License Agreement between AEG Live LA, LLC, and the Defendant. Paragraph 8 on page 5 contains the following indemnification clause: 8. Indemnification.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

MEISTER VS. COLEMAN-HYMAN

Exhibit 5 (also referred to in UMFs 6-9) appears at pages 84-168 of the Notice of Lodging. It consists of the Annuity Contract, various riders and other documents. There is no indication, at any point, of where the claimed statements putting Plaintiffs on notice or negating Susan’s right to lifetime withdrawals appear.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

LANCE PETERSEN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

The parties did not deliver a courtesy copy of the notice of lodging and exhibits at issue to the courtroom, as required. Therefore, the Court cannot rule on this motion. The Court advances and vacates all pending hearing dates. The Court sets the following dates: Hearing on Motion to Seal: January 8, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena: January 8, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication: February 5, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A WISCONSIN CORPORATION VS. MCKENNACO, INC.

The Court has read and considered the Notice of Lodging Proposed Order Appointing Referee, including the fact that the parties agreed on Judge Francisco Firmat (Ret.).

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

WELL FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL INC VS BLAINE GRAY ET AL

In addition, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a Notice of Lodging on October 29, 2020 stating that the proposed papers have been lodged in support of Plaintiff’s default judgment; these papers have not been filed, as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 473(b), nor received by lodging. The court notes that the Notice of Lodging likewise indicates the incorrect address and Department for the motion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

JOSE ARDON VS KARINA ROJO, ET AL.

That same date, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lodging with the subject recording. Motion for Sanctions Parties’ Positions Plaintiff provides that on 3/17/20, only five days after the incident, Plaintiff sent a preservation of evidence letter to Defendants’ premises requesting preservation of any and all videotaped footage of the incident. On 4/7/20, Plaintiff served Defendants with Request for Production of Documents, set one, demanding copies of any surveillance footage.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. VS KNIGHT LAW GROUP, ET AL.

Defendant should file a notice of lodging documents (that gives notice that the documents were lodged only). The parties are ordered to file another joint statement regarding the remaining disputed issues 5 days before the hearing. For the narrow purposes of the depositions of Campos and Becerra on November 9 and 11 only, however, the court orders that Plaintiff may question Campos and Becerra on all documents that Defendant has produced to date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

PAUL ROBINSON VS SURFACE MODIFICATION SYSTEMS ET AL

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to Defendant’s Reply and Notice of Lodging are OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

POONSOOK BRAINANGKUL VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.

On October 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a Notice of Lodging and Reinstating Plaintiff’s Attorney Fee Motion, with a hearing date of December 13, 2019. On December 4, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application filed on behalf of defendant SPS and the Bank of New York Mellon, at Trustee, to continue the hearing on the motion for attorney fees, which was granted. The motion has been continued several times while the Volantis appeal has been pending.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH VS. THE CITY OF TUSTIN

Petitioners’ Objections to Respondents’ Notice of Lodging of Joint Excerpts of Administrative Record are overruled. The citations to the Administrative Record contained in Respondent’s and Real Party in Interest’s Joint Opposition are consistent with the court’s copy of the Administrative Record. In fact, Petitioner’s copies of the Administrative Record attached as exhibits to its Objections match the court’s copies of the Administrative Record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

RICHARD PECH VS AFSHIN MOGHAVEM, ET AL.

On June 15, 2020, the Moghavem defendants filed a notice of lodging of the proposed redacted complaint, but the court did not receive the actual redacted complaint itself.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRADY VS BAYER AG

The clerk is ordered to permanently seal the documents listed in the notice of lodging at ROA 216. The redacted versions of these documents shall remain part of the public file.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS KEDI ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Notice of Lodging, Exhibits 5-16; Motion, 9-10.) Each officer’s declaration describes the time spent on the investigation. Further, Plaintiff submits a declaration from LAPD employee Truc Nguyen regarding each LAPD officer’s salary. (Notice of Lodging, Exhibit 3; Motion, 9-10.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ELLIE ACEVEDO VS BEVERLY PACIFIC HOLDINGS INC ET AL

. ¶¶ 6-8, Exhibits D-E to Notice of Lodging.) No responses have been received as of the date of Sandler’s Declaration. (Sandler Decl. ¶ 9.) Analysis I.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RICHARD PECH VS AFSHIN MOGHAVEM, ET AL.

On June 15, 2020, the Moghavem defendants filed a notice of lodging of the proposed redacted complaint, but the court is not in possession of the actual redacted complaint itself. On July 13, 2020, the Moghavem Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP motion). On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition (“Plaintiff’s August 28, 2020 opposition”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANA MORENO ET AL VS WIESS FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

Notice of Lodging Of Certified English Translations On September 9, 2020, Defendants filed a Notice of Lodging of Certified English Language Translations of Key Agreements. The Court notes that merely “lodging” the Certified English Language Translations of Key Agreements with the Court, without publicly filing them, is impermissible. The public is entitled to see the documents which the Court reviewed in reaching this decision.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.