What is a Stipulated Judgment?

Useful Resources for Stipulated Judgment

Recent Rulings on Stipulated Judgment

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

(Opposition pp. 6-7) Provided that the City agrees to a stipulated preliminary injunction on these issues, there is no imminent threat of irreparable harm based on these provisions. Plaintiffs also contend that they are facing the potential threat of criminal prosecution, but as noted by the City, Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) § 1.01.370 has for years provided that violations of any AMC provisions may be prosecuted as misdemeanors. (City RJN, Ex. L, p. 108.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

s Motion for Summary Adjudication 4)Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Turner Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Against Plaintiffs 1. Motion by Saddleback Corp. dba Saddleback Waterproof for Summary Judgment or Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Defendant Saddleback’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of Issues 5 and 6 (statute of limitations) is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

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

Where the judgment commands that the order or decision be set aside, it may order the reconsideration of the case in light of the court’s opinion and judgment and may order respondent to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the judgment shall not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent. (Emphasis added.) Draft Proposed Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

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

The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just. (Ibid.) On Forms CIV-100 and JUD0-100 filed July 20, 2020, Plaintiff Long-Him Tang (“Tang”) requests $500,768 consisting of $768 in special damages and $500,000 in general damages. Tang states that he received urgent care the same day of the dog attack from Kaiser Permanente. (Tang Decl., ¶ 12.)

  • 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.

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/Form CIV-105. (CRC 3.1800(a).) See above Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS LUCILLE ROBINSON

Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, contingent upon Plaintiff’s filing of a Request for Dismissal of Does 1-10.[1] ANALYSIS Yes (1/22/21) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.) See above 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).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

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

Credit Union’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff I.L.W.U. Credit Union’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background Plaintiff I.L.W.U.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Charges, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs Civil Code section 798.61, subdivision (d)(2) states: “If, at the hearing, the petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the criteria for an abandoned mobilehome has been satisfied and no party establishes an interest therein at the hearing and tenders all past due rent and other charges, the court shall enter a judgment of abandonment, determine the amount of charges to which the petitioner is entitled, and award attorney's fees and costs to the petitioner

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2021

STEPHANIE GREENE VS LINDA PENA ET AL

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. \

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) 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).)

  • 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

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)

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.) 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).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2021

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

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. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

TENTATIVE RULING MSJ BY PLAINTIFF JOSE SALAZAR 19VECV01453 HEARING DATE 2/4/2021 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIER OF FACT WHICH PREVENT ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. IT IS NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO TIMELY OPPOSITION FILED TO THE MSJ. REGARDLESS OF THE ABSENCE OF AN OPPOSITION, THE MOTION IS NOT “AUTOMATICALLY” GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

JOSE SALAZAR VS JOSE L MUNIZ

TENTATIVE RULING MSJ BY PLAINTIFF JOSE SALAZAR 19VECV01453 HEARING DATE 2/4/2021 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIER OF FACT WHICH PREVENT ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. FIRST, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO TIMELY OPPOSITION FILED TO THE MSJ. REGARDLESS OF THE ABSENCE OF AN OPPOSITION, THE MOTION IS NOT “AUTOMATICALLY” GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2021

LORI CARROLL VS ECOLAB INC., ET AL.

However, the parties have stipulated to transfer this action to San Bernardino County Superior Court. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to transfer this action to San Bernardino County Superior Court as stipulated. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff’s motion to transfer this action to San Bernardino County Superior Court is granted per the stipulation of the parties.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SAFAVI VS. KRISTEN RITZAU, D.D.S

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication OFF CALENDAR PER MOVING PARTY

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

KANTAR VS. SHERIFF-CORONER DON BARNES

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings CONTINUED TO 4/5/21

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

DECKER VS. JOHNSON

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Moving Party: Defendant Dawn Johnson Responding Party: None (would be Plaintiff Jay Decker) Ruling: Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as moot. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 01/15/2021, rendering this motion moot. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

DO WOO KIM VS JOON CHUL PARK

(b) provides, in part: Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk..., or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered....

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SUNPOWER CAPITAL, LLC VS BEN HE, ET AL.

He, et al. (20PSCV00582) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff SunPower Capital, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff SunPower Capital, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP, LLP VS LETICIA HERNANDEZ

with the date of the judgment and the title of the court and the case”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

BROWN VS. ANAHEIM GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER

Motion for Summary Judgment Moving Party: Defendants Anaheim Global Medical Center and KPC Healthcare, Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff Barbara Eva Brown Ruling: Defendants’ unopposed motions for summary judgment are granted. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden to show the plaintiff’s action has no merit.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

CTRSHP OF KATHRYN E VINCENT

A judgment, decree or order must be complete in itself. LR 7.110 JULIE ANN SLOAN-ENEA PARKER SLOAN ANI KELEDJIAN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Revised, proposed Order as to person only The Court is waiting for these items: 1. Report of Patanisha Davis (limited) Note: Notice of Withdrawal of Petition filed 10-20-2020. It appears withdrawal is as to estate only.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • 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.