What is a Stipulated Judgment?

Useful Rulings on 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

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

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.) N/A Summary of the case.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

(KC070509) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Jose Aguilera’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Jose Aguilera’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., 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. (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

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

UPGRADE SECURITIZATION TRUST I VS CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ

Lopez (19PSCV00965) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Upgrade Securitization Trust I’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Upgrade Securitization Trust I’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for August 14, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

., et al. (20PSCV00215) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff YesLender, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff YesLender, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

“If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Id. at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for August 6, 2020 Discussion Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On March 24, 2020, defendant filed his Reply Brief, noting that the judgment had become final because no notice of appeal was filed prior to March 20, 2020. [See, C.C.P. sec. 904.2; CRC Rule 8.822(A).] Since no motion for reconsideration or to vacate the judgment were filed, the Court agrees that the time to appeal the judgment entered in this matter expired on March 20, 2020. Accordingly, the Court cannot revisit the issue of defendant’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

Chen, et al. (19PSCV00800) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling The hearing on Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to September 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Background Plaintiff Changliang Dai (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is an investor from China. In or around March 2018, Plaintiff met Thomas Chen (“Chen”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GOTHAM DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

As such, the default judgment is procedurally defective and lacks admissible evidence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

On November 15, 2019, the Court denied First American Title Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, 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).) No 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

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Charles Peters’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as to Parallel Causes of Action for Violation of Title 3[] of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code is DENIED. Defendant Charles Peters’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as to Parallel Causes of Action for Violation of Title 10 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

11TH STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC VS TARYN ROSE

Finally, Plaintiff must file an amended JUD-100 form that matches the amended request for default judgment as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(6).

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOHNATHAN MOLTONI, ET AL. VS XTREME MOTOR SPORTS, INC., ET AL.

., et al. (19PSCV00425) _____________________________________________ Plaintiffs Johnathan Moltoni’s and Tricia Valentine’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiffs Johnathan Moltoni’s and Tricia Valentine’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUIS ALONSO VS ROUNDTREE N VAN NUYS, LLC DBA NISSAN OF VAN NUYS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

CASE NO: 19VECV00818 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Dept. T 8:30 a.m. July 21, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED IN PART. The requested award for damages is granted EXCEPT as to the request for $2 million in punitive damages. Plaintiff Luis Alonso’s (“Plaintiff”) request for punitive damages is insufficiently proven up.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CITY OF POMONA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL. VS HIGH SUPPLY, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Discussion Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED. ANALYSIS Yes (4/1/20) 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).) 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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RIVA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT VS MACROSQL TECHNOLOGY LLC

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On November 8, 2016, a Declaratory Judgment as between Plaintiff and City was filed. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff dismissed its second and fourth causes of action, with prejudice. On August 16, 2017, the “Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. § 362” was entered by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in case styled In re: Dispatch Transportation, LLC, Case No. 6:16-bk-17768-MH. On March 16, 2018, Dispatch’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

YOUNGMEE MERRICK VS EUNHEE CHOI

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. VS THE KROGER CO., ET AL.

On March 23, 2018, a Consent Judgment was entered in that case which, in part, provided for the retention of jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Judgment and provided enforcement procedures to address any alleged non-compliance with the Consent Judgment. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations concern conduct which is explicitly regulated under the Consent Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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 gather your results.