How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Turner did not specify the ultimate material facts as to the economic loss rule as to each plaintiff’s negligence claim in its Separate Statement, instead reciting verbatim deposition testimony and other discovery responses, which left it to the Court the cumbersome task of trying to determine whether Turner established that Plaintiffs only have economic damages. (SSUF 44-61.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Plaintiffs Cathay Bank and Robb Evans & Associates LLC (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) move for leave to conduct discovery into the financial condition of Defendant Ace and Defendant JMI (collectively, the “Defendants”) pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(c): No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d) provides: “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

However, unsupported attorney’s fee allegations need not be stricken pursuant to a motion to strike, since later discovery may reveal a basis for their recovery. (Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699.) Additionally, pursuant to Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Counsel represents that the parties engaged in investigation and discovery in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

MATTER OF YVETTE DEROUEN FIGUEROA

RE: MTN TO QUASH DISCOVERY; FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED ON 05/05/20 BY ANDRE DEROUEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order FILED ON 06/19/19 BY YVETTE DEROUEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N ON FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR

GOINS Need appearances to report status, including 7-16-2020 order to meet and confer and discovery. Notes: 1. Per 7-16-2020 minute order, court ordered discovery completed by 10-1-2020. 2. Court intends to set this matter for trial. 3. Discovery motion filed by Diana Bundrum 8-7-2020 is set for 11-24-2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GREENFIELD ORGANIX, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LITTLE COTTAGE CAREGIVERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

.: 19SMCV02176 Complaint Filed: 12-19-19 Hearing Date: 9-29-20 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 6 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Greenfield Organix d/b/a Loudpack RESP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Again, extensive legal argument, if necessary, should be addressed in the memorandum of points and authorities filed with notice of motion, and not repeated in the joint separate statement. 4. Appointment of a Discovery Referee and Further Discovery Conference.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE KONIGSBERG COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 19SMCV01281 Complaint Filed: 7-18-19 Hearing Date: 9-29-20 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 3 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: Defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and New Line Productions, Inc. RESP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LYSA COOPER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY

Plaintiff argued Defendant was attempting to use the COVID-19 pandemic as a tactic to delay discovery. In opposition, Defendant argues the motion should be denied because Defendant has worked with Plaintiff to provide mutually agreeable dates, while Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TANIA PULLIAM VS HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC ET AL

TDAF further objects specifically to the $1,880 that TDAF paid to Plaintiff to settle the discovery dispute between the parties. TDAF argues that it would be double recovery to allow Plaintiff to recover these costs. Plaintiff argues that the $1,880 payment did not pay for attorney fees, costs, or expenses incurred in drafting the motions, rather the payment was simply to settle the outstanding issue of sanctions against TDAF. The Court disagrees with Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

US REAL ESTATE CREDIT HOLDINGS III-A, LP VS SCOTT EISNER, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STUART RUBIN CHILDREN'S TRUST, ET AL.

Prejudice exists, for example, where the plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend, and the amendment will require a trial continuance and a reopening of discovery on the eve of trial Id. (leave to amend properly denied where plaintiff offered no explanation for one-year delay in seeking leave to amend, amendment was requested after trial readiness conference, amendment would require additional discovery and amendment would likely trigger a demurrer or other pretrial motions); Magpali v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE DOE VS LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN KANANI, ET AL.

.: 19SMCV01991 Complaint Filed: 11-13-19 Hearing Date: 9-29-20 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 11 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: MOTION TO STAY ACTION MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe RESP. PARTY: Defendants Law Offices of Benjamin Kanani and Benjamin Kanani TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Action is GRANTED pending resolution of the appeals in Case Nos. 17SMRO00308 and 17SMRO00368.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SCILABS NUTRACEUTIALS, INC. VS. LUBERSKI INC.

The basis for the third motion was: · Edalat’s failure to respond to “all discovery propounded in this case” (i.e., the first set of requests for admission, interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents propounded on April 4, 2013) · Edalat’s refusal to meet and confer regarding the discovery propounded on April 4, 2013 and failure to oppose the resulting motions to compel · Edalat’s failure to comply with the October 1, 2013 Court order requiring discovery responses and

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

AUTUMN MATZAT VS VH PROPERTY CORP

Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Defendant’s motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. (CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $370/motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MARCELA CARRILLO VS RYAN SHANNON ET AL

Discovery Cut-Off Plaintiff submits evidence showing that on or about 3/10/20, the parties stipulated to a trial continuance and agreed discovery would be closed, with only expert discovery open. (Mot. Exh. 2.) However, the court’s records show that on 3/17/20, based on current conditions, including, but not limited to, the spread of COVID-19, the court on its own motion vacated the then 4/2/20 trial date and set a Trial Setting Conference for 5/1/20.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

BROWN VS. ANAHEIM GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiff did not file an Opposition, and there is no evidence that Plaintiff provided the requested discovery responses. The Requests for Admissions are thus deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) Because the second set of Form Interrogatories seeks only information about those Requests for Admission, the motions relating to the second set of Form Interrogatories are moot.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

FERNANDO ZELAYA VS FRANCISCO ALVAREZ

The parties are ordered to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Court’s Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures (9/26/19), which is available on the LA Superior Court’s website, under the Personal Injury section. The hearing on the MTCF is continued to _____{{TBD}}________, _____ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

MONESHIA BRANCH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS MAURICE JACKSON, AN INDIVIDUAL

Based on Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery requests, Defendant is entitled to verified responses without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production within twenty (20) days’ service of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Plaintiffs’ failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.) The requested sanctions have been properly noticed but are excessive give the simplicity of these Motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STARR VS STARR

If the parties agree to a discovery referee, they may select one or may submit a list of proposed discovery referees.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

After a review of the protective order and reference to pertinent terms of the protective order articulated above, the Court finds that the protective order by its explicit terms does not apply to documents obtained prior to discovery in this action. The protective order only applies to documents produced in discovery in this action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

WILLIAMS VS. MCPHETRIGE

Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena filed by Bradley T. Williams Motion is Moot; No sanctions ordered.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND VS. RICARDO LARA IN HIS CAPACITY AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This is not enough to warrant discovery. d. Discovery is not warranted under Section 1094.5, subdivision (e). Section 1094.5, subdivision ( e) does not address discovery – it simply allows the court discretion to consider extra-record evidence. To the extent SCIF seeks discovery in order to admit evidence under subdivision ( e), it fails a make an adequate showing that any discovery is warranted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC ET AL VS PLY GEM PACIFIC WINDOWS CORPORATION ET AL

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) In the prior tentative the court stated: “Plaintiffs have provided no opposition or other response to this motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara 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.