What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Plaintiff has not submitted a supplemental declaration supporting the Supplemental Application. ANALYSIS Yes (5/23/19) 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).) See above Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

11TH STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC VS TARYN ROSE

Plaintiff shall file a supplemental declaration on or before October 1, 2020. REASONING This is the second hearing on this Application for Default Judgment. Plaintiff 11th Street Investments, LLC, failed to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s prior order dated March 27, 2020. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment must be supplemented and corrected as set forth below. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NICOLE Y JACKSON VS NK PROPERTIES INC

Discussion Despite being warned that that failure to file the requested supplemental declaration could result in the Demurrer being placed off calendar or denied, Defendant failed to do so. For this reason, the Demurrer is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. III. Motion to Withdraw Admissions A. Service of the Moving Papers Plaintiff seeks to amend her answer to a single Request for Admission, No. 12, from “admit” to “deny” because she misread the question and responded incorrectly. (Mot., Jackson Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN RE THE MATTER OF THE RICHARD CLAIR AFFLECK REVOCABLE LIVING

The court has reviewed the Supplemental Declaration and amended Notice of Hearing filed June 23, 2020 which resolve the outstanding issues. Absent any objections, the court intends to rule, as follows: The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The petition as corrected by the Supplement is granted as prayed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

B&D NORTON PROPERTIES, INC. VS SOPHIA PETOSKEY

Further, the supplemental declaration of Petitioner’s on-site manager, Glady Rivera, states that no rent has been paid for the space for the 60 preceding days and that a reasonable person would believe the Mobile Home to be abandoned. (Pet., Supp. Rivera Decl., ¶10.) Therefore, Petitioner has demonstrated that the Mobile Home is abandoned within the meaning of Civil Code section 798.61, subdivision (a)(1). B. Notice of Belief of Abandonment—Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

NICOLE Y JACKSON VS NK PROPERTIES INC

Discussion Despite being warned that that failure to file the requested supplemental declaration could result in the Demurrer being placed off calendar or denied, Defendant failed to do so. For this reason, the Demurrer is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. III. Motion to Withdraw Admissions A. Service of the Moving Papers Plaintiff seeks to amend her answer to a single Request for Admission, No. 12, from “admit” to “deny” because she misread the question and responded incorrectly. (Mot., Jackson Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARTURO REYES V. IVARY MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall do so in a supplemental declaration to be filed prior to the preliminary approval hearing, if possible. The supplemental declaration shall also address the references in the Declaration of Alireza Alivandivafa to a Second Amended Complaint and a dismissal by stipulation of plaintiff’s conversion claim, which appear to be in error, as well as the release of claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), discussed below.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MARTINEZ VS. SSC NEWPORT BEACH OPERATING CO. LP

The supplemental declaration merely concludes that the issues have been resolved and attaches copies of the Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and the amended Class Notice along with red-lined versions for the court to sift through. The class notice still fails to clearly and unambiguously reflect that a class member may orally object or otherwise offer comments at the Final Approval Hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ALVAREZ VS. ATCHESON'S EXPRESS, LLC

The supplemental declaration says at 2:14 that the second payment will be six months after final approval, but the supplemental declaration says at 2:26 that the second payment will be one year after final approval. The Class Notice also says one year. Clarification is required. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MARTINEZ VS. SSC NEWPORT BEACH OPERATING CO. LP

The supplemental declaration merely concludes that the issues have been resolved and attaches copies of the Amendment to the Settlement Agreement and the amended Class Notice along with red-lined versions for the court to sift through. The class notice still fails to clearly and unambiguously reflect that a class member may orally object or otherwise offer comments at the Final Approval Hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

PABLO RIVAS GUTIERREZ VS JUAN HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ III ET AL

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration showing that Plaintiff did not receive the motion. Where the address of the client is not known, “any attempt of service pursuant to this subdivision may be made by delivering the notice or papers to the clerk of the court, for that party. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1011(b)(3). Moving party is ordered to give notice. AN APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED, AS A TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE IS ALSO SCHEDULED FOR THIS DATE.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RANVIR KAUR V. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

Anticipated expenses— expenses that have yet to be incurred—are not recoverable, particularly in the absence of a supplemental declaration establishing they have since been incurred. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a); Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JEFF GRABOW VS NEELAKANTAN ANAND, MD, ET AL.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental declaration and evidence showing Plaintiff’s inability to post a bond for $25,000 by August 10, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. Moving Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration and evidence by August 17, 2019 at 11:59 p.m. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ROGER VOLODARSKY VS GRAHAM GIBSON

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in response to the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) hearing in which he declared that he discovered new evidence proving Defendant has had minimum contacts in this jurisdiction and that he has taken every reasonable and necessary step to prosecute this action. (Supp-Decl. of Plaintiff ¶¶6-7.) The Court notes this declaration was filed after the 10-day deadline.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JEFF GRABOW VS NEELAKANTAN ANAND, MD, ET AL.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental declaration and evidence showing Plaintiff’s inability to post a bond for $25,000 by August 10, 2020 at 11:59 p.m. Moving Defendant may file a reply to Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration and evidence by August 17, 2019 at 11:59 p.m. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

The Court requests Defendant submit a supplemental declaration to support the attorneys’ fees actually incurred in connection with the instant motion, reply, and fees anticipated to be incurred in appearing on the motion based on the hourly rate of the attorney who performed or who will perform the work.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ARISPE VS WASHINGTON INVENTORY SERVICE

However, that addendum, attached to the supplemental declaration of Perez, names Washington Inventory Service, Inc., dba WIS International, as a party to the addendum and accordingly has two signature lines for that contracting party, but both signature lines are blank. Without a fully executed addendum, the Court cannot rely on the amendments contained in it. Moreover, although the plaintiff contends that her individual claims are worth $9500, the Court is not persuaded that they have any value.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT V. REGINALD E. DREW, JR., ET AL.

On June 29 the defendant filed objections to the supplemental declaration that are persuasive.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Supplemental Declaration of Eric Levinrad in support of the Motion to Bifurcate, conditionally filed under seal on February 4, 2020 ("Confidential Document No. 33,); 4. Exhibit 5 to the Supplemental Declaration of Eric Levinrad in support of the Motion to Bifurcate, conditionally filed under seal on February 4, 2020 ("Confidential Document No. 4").

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS JESUS ANTONIO DONADO CRUZ

Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration providing those details. (Id.) On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed the requested declaration. To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. Legal Standard Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a), and section 576.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OLIVIER SAINT-VICTOR VS SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT

At the initial hearing on March 9, 2020, the Court declined to consider the merits of Defendant’s Motion for failure to include a meet and confer declaration and ordered Defendant to file and serve a supplemental declaration attesting to its meet and confer efforts. (3/9/20 Minute Order.) On April 3, 2020, Defendant filed the requested declaration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREG LAKS VS DEBORAH GLICK, ET AL.

Counsel is ordered to file a supplemental declaration in support of the amended petition providing documentation to substantiate the medical lien by 7/29/2020. The Court also notes that counsel has requested reimbursement for costs of $61.65 for the petition. The Court does not charge a filing fee for the petition and the Court intends to disallow that cost. The Court finds good cause to excuse the appearance of the minor at the hearing on 8/7/2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

IN RE THE MATTER OF KARN PAUL NANDA SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST

The court has reviewed the Supplemental Declaration filed May 5, 2020 which resolves the outstanding issues. The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The petition as supplemented is granted as prayed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

DONALD L. CRAWFORD, SR. VS ALERO MACK, JR., ET AL.

On April 2, 2020, Cross-Defendants Klam and Holthus file a supplemental declaration by their attorney with a copy of the proposed responsive pleading attached. (Supp. Coutts Decl., Exh. B.) Based on Cross-Defendants Klam and Holthus’ compliance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), the Motion to Vacate Entry of Default on Cross-Complainant Alero Mack, Jr.’s Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. THE NOVEMBER 4, 2019 ENTRY OF DEFAULT IS HEREBY VACATED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

TOUMA VS. BUDEE, INC.

Counsel’s supplemental declaration establishes that the administrator’s fees are capped at that amount. Litigation costs would not exceed $30,000. Attorney fees would not exceed one-third of the fund, i.e., $200,000. This would leave a net payment to the class of $310,000, which would be divided into wages, interest, and penalties. Notice to the class would be provided, which would include the number of work weeks for each member, which is the basis for determining each class member’s share.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 124     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.