What is an Offer to Compromise and Acceptance?

Useful Resources for Offer to Compromise and Acceptance

Recent Rulings on Offer to Compromise and Acceptance

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

As an initial matter, the City agrees that it will not enforce AMC § 4.05.100.0115, which requires immediate warrantless access to a STR; will not issue citations for failure to grant immediate access pending a trial in this case, pursuant to AMC § 4.05.140.020.0201(6); and will offer the City Council amendments to remove language providing for the issuance of citations for failure to grant immediate access.

  • 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

There is nothing in the Contract that can be read to express an intent by the parties to benefit Tarsadia as to Turner’s other contractual obligations, including the obligation to produce a defect-free project. Therefore, the analysis applicable to MaryJane’s contract claims applies equally to Evolution. The analysis applicable to MaryJane as to the negligence claim applies equally to Evolution. 3.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

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

CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075, which is remanded to you for reconsideration in light of the Decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. Nothing herein shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in you. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to file with this Court a return to this writ on or before (90 plus 30 days as per Respondents’ request) stating what you have done to comply.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

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

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

LONG-HIM TANG, ET AL. VS PATRICIA PONCE DE LEON

This is sufficient evidence to establish Leung’s special damages. However, the application is deficient because Does 1 through 20 have not been dismissed. Accordingly, the default application is DENIED. \

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TRANSPORT FUNDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ERK LOGISTICS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(“Assignor”), wherein Assignor agreed to sell a 2014 Peterbilt 579 Tractor, VIN 1XPBDP9X6ED226872 to ERK in exchange for ERK’s 47 monthly payments of $1,485.85, commencing on October 15, 2017 until paid in full. On or about May 15, 2020, ERK defaulted in making payments.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

I.L.W.U. CREDIT UNION VS JOHN SUA, ET AL.

The following defects are noted: Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a summary of the case, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1). It is unclear to the court how Defendants could have defaulted under the terms of the Agreement by allegedly failing to make an installment payment due on or about April 22, 2020 and all subsequent installments when the Agreement specifies that the last payment therein was due on November 23, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2021

STEPHANIE GREENE VS LINDA PENA ET AL

Pena, and Does 1 to 10 arising from a trip-and-fall. Plaintiff alleges she was in Defendants’ residence. Defendants ran an extension cord to her room from another room due to a broken electrical outlet in her room. Plaintiff alleges the extension cord was improperly secured and caused her to trip and fall, sustaining severe injuries and damages requiring medical treatment.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for January 14, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED; however, attorney’s fees are reduced to $877.31 (i.e., $690 + 3% of $6,243.54) pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, based on the $15,567.39 balance amount. ANALYSIS Yes (12/5/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

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 February 11, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

EARL BULL ET AL VS SUPERIOR MOBILITY INC ET AL

Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Cross-Complainant Pride Mobility Products Corporation's Further Responses to Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Superior Mobility, Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, (Set 3) scheduled for 02/11/2021 are continued to 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RICHARD WALTERS, ET AL. VS VASSAL BENFORD, ET AL.

TENTATIVE RULING 2/10/2021 WALTERS V BENFORD/LC084069 MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT The motion is DENIED. A wife cannot be added to a judgment rendered against her husband in an action in which she was not named and had no opportunity to defend.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for January 14, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED; however, attorney’s fees are reduced to $877.31 (i.e., $690 + 3% of $6,243.54) pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, based on the $15,567.39 balance amount. ANALYSIS Yes (12/5/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2021

WITHY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS EUN M. LIN, INC., ET AL.

.: 20STCV42099 ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MOTION TO STRIKE Date: February 5, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearings on the: (1) the demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint; and (2) the motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint, filed by Defendants Eun M. Lin, Inc. and Anthony Lin, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/11/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. RX UNLIMITED,LLC ETAL

.: BC670620 ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY CIVIL DISCOVERY AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS Date: February 5, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the motion for an order staying civil discovery[1], filed by Defendants Rx Unlimited LLC, Brian Goldstein, and Clifton Braddy, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/17/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE VS YOUNG ACTORS CAMP, ET AL.

The “Account Statement Commission Calculation” lists only “Inspire Me, dba Young” and the invoice dated 8/1/16 attached thereto is directed to “Inspire Me Inc – DBA Young Actors Camp.” While the latter document is directed to “ATTN: Nichelle Rodriguez,” this reference is insufficient to establish individual liability against N. Rodriguez.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID ANGUIANO VS CONNECT STAFFING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

FACT NO. 8 CITES AS EVIDENCE EX. 2 TO THE DECLARATION OF THE PLAINTIFF. EX. 2 IS THE HOUSING DEPT. LETTER SENT TO DEFENDANT. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT SAY THAT PLAINTIFF’S EVICTION WAS ILLEGAL. INSTEAD, IT STATES THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RSO AND THAT THE ‘COMPLAINT RECEIVED REGARDING ILLEGAL EVICTION” HAS BEEN REVIEWED. THEREAFTER, THE LETTER THEN RECITES THE LAW ON WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE LANDLORD FOR AN EVICTION. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THIS EVICTION WAS ILLEGAL.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

FACT NO. 8 CITES AS EVIDENCE EX. 2 TO THE DECLARATION OF THE PLAINTIFF. EX. 2 IS THE HOUSING DEPT. LETTER SENT TO DEFENDANT. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT SAY THAT PLAINTIFF’S EVICTION WAS ILLEGAL. INSTEAD, IT STATES THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RSO AND THAT THE ‘COMPLAINT RECEIVED REGARDING ILLEGAL EVICTION” HAS BEEN REVIEWED. THEREAFTER, THE LETTER THEN RECITES THE LAW ON WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE LANDLORD FOR AN EVICTION. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THIS EVICTION WAS ILLEGAL.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

V. L., ET AL. VS EVAN CARTER, ET AL.

(NOTE: All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re: New hearing dates.) Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING

FILED ON 09/04/20 BY CYNTHIA AKAGBOSU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required CYNTHIA AKAGBOSU FIDELIS AKAGBOSU PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to notice ALFONSO LOFTY MURRIE GERALD M TOMASSIAN RUBY LEE MURRIE

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2021

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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.