What is a Separate Statement – Summary Judgment / Adjudication?

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Summary Judgment / Adjudication

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Summary Judgment / Adjudication

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

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

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 states in his declaration that he is “not fluent in English.” Plaintiff’s declaration is written in English and is not accompanied by a translator’s declaration. Exhibit 1 is an extremely poor quality copy and largely illegible. It is unclear how a translation could have been provided based on this document.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) Yes __ __ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

Plaintiff has failed to submit a summary of the case, as per Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1).) 3. The Declaration of Michael McGinley is devoid of any facts supporting his belief that the Equipment is in Dragon’s and Zhang’s possession. 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.2; open book – CC 1717.5.) No _________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

N/A Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1); N/A for UDs) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A ______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

RE: PET’N FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION AND FOR STLMT OF FIRST AND FINAL ACCT FILED ON 05/13/20 BY BABARA WAGNER

Increase in market value of $1,612.29 reported in Summary of Account only affects fair market value schedule and should not be included in Summary of Account. 8. File a verified declaration to specify recipient of first quarter distribution of $5,600.00 on 3-31-19. Was LPL the recipient or some other tax entity? Petition states it was to cover the tax liability. 9. Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 10.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AMENDED PET’N FOR APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTING (MADISON)

File a verified declaration to include a corrected Summary of Account on Judicial Council Form that is the same as Summary of Account attached to accounting. It appears value of assets on hand at end of account differ. 9. Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. Increase in market value of $1,612.29 reported in Summary of Account only affects fair market value schedule and should not be included in Summary of Account. 10.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

N/A Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1); Not required in UD cases) Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).) Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.) N/A_________ _ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.) Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.) Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

ESTATE OF DOUGLAS S ROBINSON

Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify discrepancy between Summary of Account at pages 2-3 and Summary at Exhibit B. Summary at pages 2-3 does not balance; however, Summary at Exhibit B balances. Note: Prior accounting ends with assets valued at $465,856.97; this account begins with $465,856.57. Court will waive this de minimis error. DAVID P HERRMANN ALEXANDER L SCHMID WIILIAM DANIEL ADKINS SARAH S. NIX WILLIAM DANIEL ADKINS TRUST (9 -- See also Line 25 -- Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF RICHARD MARTIN REIMERS

Verified declaration by petitioner to include Summary of Account on mandatory Judicial Council Form GC-400/GC-405 as to each account period 5. Summary of Account that complies with PrC § 1061(b). 2nd and Final Accounting must begin with values on hand at end of 1st account period ($26,581.12). 6. Verified declaration by petitioner to specify purpose of other charges of $63,500.00. 7. Proof of mailing to all persons entitled to receive notice 8.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PTN OF RONALD WULFERDINGER

File a verified declaration to include a corrected Summary of Account on Judicial Council Form that is the same as Summary of Account attached to accounting. It appears value of assets on hand at end of account differ. 9. Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. Increase in market value of $1,612.29 reported in Summary of Account only affects fair market value schedule and should not be included in Summary of Account. 10.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

REVIEW RE: COMPLIANCE RE FILING ACCOUNTING.

Summary of Account that complies with PrC § 1061(b). Accounting must begin with values as reported in Inventory & Appraisal ($1,744,633.01). 5. Verified declaration by petitioner to specify purpose of payment to Clear Organization 6. Notice of Filing Inventory & Appraisal Form GC-042 filed as to I&A filed 4-20-2020, and Proof of Service re: same PrC § 2610 7. Determination of Conservatee’s Appropriate Level of Care filed on mandatory Judicial Council Form GC-355.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF GDN, PERSON

File a verified declaration to include a corrected Summary of Account on Judicial Council Form that is the same as Summary of Account attached to accounting. It appears value of assets on hand at end of account differ. 9. Accounting that complies with PrC § 1060 et seq. Increase in market value of $1,612.29 reported in Summary of Account only affects fair market value schedule and should not be included in Summary of Account. 10.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MYRNA KAWAKITA VS GEORGE TASHJIAN MD ET AL

., for Summary Judgment” and a “Judgment by Court Under CCP § 437c” were filed. The Final Status Conference is set for April 12, 2020. Trial is set for April 20, 2020. Discussion Raymond Ghermezian, A Professional Law Corporation, seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff (“Client”). The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JUAN PALMA ET AL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

On December 1, 2017, SARH filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Cross-Defendants Aviation West Charters, LLC, dba Angel Medflight World Wide Air Ambulance (“Aviation”) and Roes 1-100 for: On April 26, 2018, the court granted KFHPI’s motion for summary judgment and granted KFH’s and SCPMG’s respective motions for summary adjudication of the third cause of action. On December 5, 2018, a Notice of Settlement was filed as between Plaintiffs and KFH, SCPMG, KFHPI and Shah.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

BENJAMIN F. POCO, ET AL. VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

Benjamin and Bienvenida have not provided the court with a summary of the case, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1). Benjamin and Bienvenida have also failed to provide the court with a Judicial Council Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment. 3.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ARMANDO TORRES, ET AL. VS CARLOS A. TURCIOS DURAN

Separate Statement at pp. 1-2:26-10.) In response to RFA No. 6, Defendant objected the RFA seeks information protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and in response to RFA No. 7, Defendant object the RFA was overbroad and irrelevant to the subject matter of this action. As to Form Interrogatory 17.1, Defendant responded in part, “(b) Following the subject accident, responding party repaired his vehicle; (c) Responding party, responding party's insurance company.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

IVETTE ROSALES ET AL VS THE NORTHEAST COMMUNITY CLINIC ET AL

“‘When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.’“ (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RE: PET’N FOR APRVL OF 1ST & FNL ACCT, FINAL DIST, INST, DISCHARGE

Summary of Account on mandatory Judicial Council Form GC-400/GC-405 Note: Opposition filed by Kenneth Chapman on 9/15/2020 CAROLYN D CAIN CAROLYN D CAIN DELORES ANN CHAPMAN PROBATE ADVANCE LLC WESTERN SURETY COMPANY JOHN L FALLAT FILED ON 05/06/20 BY ROBERTA McDONOUGH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need 1. Appearances Note: Opposition filed by Kathleen Jaeger and Erin Armstrong on 7/8/2020 ERIN ARMSTRONG RONALD G. PECK KATHLEEN JAEGER RONALD G.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

The joint separate statement shall quote each request to which a further response is requested, the response given, a short statement of the factual and legal reason for compelling a further response followed by a short statement of the factual and legal reason why no further response should be required. 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. 3.

  • 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.

Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613; 5 Witkin, Summary (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 793.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA VS REDFORD INDUSTRIAL-1065 WALNUT, LLC, ET AL.

Ruling The motion for summary adjudication is taken off-calendar. Next dates: Notice:

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MOHAMMAD H.K. AHAD, ET AL. VS RAFIQ ISLAM MOLLAH, ET AL.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion and supporting documents including the Declarations of Farhana and Ahad, Request for Judicial Notice, and Separate Statement, Defendants’ Opposition and Separate Statement in Opposition, and Plaintiffs’ reply. The parties have not submitted evidentiary objections. Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiffs’ 6/1/20 request for judicial notice of the November 27, 2013 Grant Deed, October 18, 2017 Complaint, and Minute Order is granted. (RJN, Exhs. 1, 2, 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALEXANDRO FILIPPINI, ET AL. V. SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL, INC., ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motions Summary Judgment (3) The Summary Judgment Motions are moot - off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 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 load this page.