What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Resources for Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

717 NOGALES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NEW DIAMOND TRUCKING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND, ET AL.

The supplemental declaration of counsel John Byrne filed November 24, 2020 is insufficient in this regard. A further declaration from Eric Guefen or other manager of the subject property is requested, specifically identifying for the court where the $16,103.00 monthly rent figure is referenced and/or how this figure was calculated. Plaintiff does not address the disposition of any security deposit. The supplemental declaration of counsel John Byrne filed November 24, 2020 is insufficient in this regard.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

ANTHONY JONES VS SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.

On January 21, 2021, Defendant filed the supplemental declaration of Jonathan Talbot. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. DISCUSSION A. Proof of Service The proof of service of the summons and complaint was filed on January 4, 2021—after Defendant filed this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEWART V. MILGARD MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED [INCLUDED IN MILGARD MANUFACTURING, INC. WAGE AND HOUR CASES, JCCP5056/SANTA CLARA]

Plaintiff’s counsel may submit a supplemental declaration before the hearing if 16 there are additional incurred costs. 17 The motion for approval of PAGA settlement is GRANTED, with the stated exceptions 18 of the incentive award and the anticipated costs. 26 Public access to telephonic hearings is available on a listen-only line by calling 866-434-5269 27 (access code 6433515). 1 State and local rules prohibit recording of court proceedings without a court order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

OLMOS, ET AL. V. DOYLE'S WORK COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiffs shall file a 17 supplemental declaration with information regarding their settlement by February 3, 2021 no 18 later than 4:00 p.m. 26 Public access to telephonic hearings is available on a listen-only line by calling 866-434-5269 27 (access code 6433515). Footnote 10: 11 Footnote 19: 20 The court will prepare the final order and judgment if this tentative ruling is not 21 contested.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

EARL NORBERT GARRETT, IV VS THE ENTHUSIAST NETWORK, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

For the same reason, the Court declines to rule on GoldenTree’s evidentiary objections to the Supplemental Declaration of Earl Norbert Garrett IV as unnecessary. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Garrett’s motion for reconsideration is denied. GoldenTree is ordered to give notice of this Order. DATED: January 27, 2021 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALICIA CORDERO VS VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS

The Court notes that while counsel indicates a copy of Plaintiff’s request for production and Defendant’s verified responses to the request are attached to the supplemental declaration, it appears the wrong discovery request and responses were inadvertently attached. (Id., ¶ 4.) Regardless, the Court finds counsel’s supplemental declaration is sufficient to authenticate the video. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

MAXIMINO SOTO VS DE ROBLIN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s Objection To Supplemental Declaration of Alison Gibbs Plaintiff’s Objection to the Supplemental Declaration of Alison Gibbs in support of the Reply is SUSTAINED. Evidence extrinsic to the Complaint, submitted for the first time with the Reply no less, will not be considered on demurrer. “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ALEJANDRO PULIDO VS BLUEMERCURY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Declaration of Alejandro Pulido in Support of Opposition to Defendant Open House Productions’ Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, and any exhibits attached thereto, filed in this case on November 5, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOHN DOE V. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

Objection #3: Regents objects to the statement regarding the supplemental declaration submitted with the reply to the opposition to the earlier motion. Regents argues that new evidence may not be submitted with a reply. “The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (2013) (anti-SLAPP motion).

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

IMAGECRAFT PRODUCTIONS INC VS HOLLYWOOD CENTER STAGES INC ET

Discussion Defendant Conlan moves to augment his Supplemental Declaration of Expert Witness. Defendant Conlan originally designated Michael Horowitz, CPA (“Horowitz”) as one of its experts. However, on November 6, 2020, Horowitz communicated to Defendant Conlan that he had contracted cancer, and due to Horowitz's cancer treatment schedule, would likely not be able to testify at trial. (Brenner Decl. ¶ 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREEN KNIGHT SECURITY INC. VS MARGAUX VIERA

Thus, before reaching a final decision, Defendant is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration clarifying the situation. B. Motion to Quash As Defendant’s request to set aside the default must be resolved first, the hearing on the Motion to Quash is CONTINUED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

CENTRAVEL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MARVIN A. TORRES, ET AL.

The Court OVERRULES Benavides’ evidentiary objection number 4 to the supplemental declaration of Angie Cortes. THE TORRES MOTION The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to move the parties in an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible. (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 23.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NICK NICHOLS VS CITY OF BURBANK

Plaintiff in reply submits a supplemental declaration of plaintiff’s counsel Glave, to refute the testimony of Estrada of his lack of involvement. Glave indicates that he reviewed emails from the period, and produces an email in which Estrada in fact is directly communicating with Glave on the case, and sharing information with Glave with respect to the evidence against both Perez and Nichols in the form of transcripts. [See Glave Decl., para. 5, Ex. 2].

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RANCHO CIENEGA, LLC, ET AL. VS LEVI ESTATES, LLC,, ET AL.

The Court rules on Defendants’ objections to the Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Leff as follows: Objection 1: sustained Objection 2: sustained The Court rules on Defendants’ additional objections to the Declaration of Andrew Leff as follows: Objection 1: overruled Objection 2: sustained Objection 3: sustained Objection 4: overruled Discussion Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ALEJANDRO PULIDO VS BLUEMERCURY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Declaration of Alejandro Pulido in Support of Opposition to Defendant Open House Productions’ Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, and any exhibits attached thereto, filed in this case on November 5, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRAVO VS SUNRISE FLOOR SYSTEMS,LLC

Counsel’s supplemental declaration states “defendant’s payroll taxes will be deducted from the gross settlement amount but the settlement agreement provides that these will be paid separately. There is no proof of service of settlement agreement on the LWDA. The notice to class members does not mention the PAGA settlement or aggrieved employees. Will a separate notice be given to aggrieved employees at the time checks are delivered explaining the additional payment?

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

ELIJAH EDWARDS VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

On 11/18/20, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration of counsel. Counsel attaches the parties’ fee agreement, as well as a list of costs to date. The costs to date total $28,305.76 plus $985.91 in interest. The supplemental declaration fails to address the Medi-Cal lien issue (¶13 of the petition), the proposed $150,000 in future costs, or the failure to fill out ¶¶16 and 17 of the petition. These defects therefore remain outstanding.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CONSERVATORSHIP OF RITA LAVERNE MARTINS

Petitioner is welcome to submit a supplemental declaration discussing why service to Dennis Allen meet the standard required to dispense with notice. The proposed temporary conservatee is not expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code § 2250.4, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CONSERVATORSHIP OF RITA LAVERNE MARTINS

Petitioner is welcome to submit a supplemental declaration discussing why service to Dennis Allen meet the standard required to dispense with notice. The proposed temporary conservatee is not expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code § 2250.4, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Judge Jed Beebe
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU VS NINA C MONTOYA

The court will hear the parties at the hearing on the additional issue raised by Defendant’s supplemental declaration on January 15, 2021. Objections to Declarations filed October 19, 2020 Defendant has filed objections to the two declarations filed on October 19, 2020. The court files on the objections as follows: SUSTAINED: 1, 6, 7, 11. OVERRULED: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13. The court considers the supplemental declaration labeled “Plaintiff’s [Amended] Supplemental Declaration of Susan L.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LISA SOLIS, ET AL. VS GEORGE BOUTROS

DISCUSSION On January 11, 2021, the Court continued the hearing on the petition after finding the written confirmations from the private health insurance plan and Ron Goldstein, M.D. to accept reduced amounts were not attached to the supplemental declaration as indicated.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

BANC OF CALIFORNIA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION VS BAYLOR HOLDING, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff is to file a supplemental declaration with computation of interest within 10 days. At that time, the matter will be taken under submission. Dated: ____________________________ Gregory Alarcon Superior Court Judge

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THOMAS JUNG VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

BMW submits various objections to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Parnell. Objections Nos, 2, and 4-5 are SUSTAINED, the remainder are OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JOSE LUIS INTERIAN CHERRIZ ET AL VS JOHNNIE KUO ET AL

The supplemental declaration supports that the Claimant has special needs that will not be met without the trust, and that the money to be paid to the special needs trust does not exceed the amount that appears reasonably necessary to meet her special needs. The Court has considered the Declaration of Omid Khorshidi in support of the 40% fee request.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

The court’s minute order states: “The Court notes that it has now received a supplemental declaration from Bill Chandler in which it is acknowledged and shown by authenticated documentation that the vested owner of record at the time of the trustee’s sale was “BILL CHANDLER, Trustee, or her successors in trust, under THE BILL CHANDLER FAMILY TRUST, dated May 16, 2018, and any amendments thereto,” as reflected in the Trust Transfer Deed of May 16, 2018. [Chandler Decl., para. 4, Ex. 4].

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 150     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.