Supplemental Declaration in California

What Is a Supplemental Declaration?

California Rules of Court

California Rules of Court provide specific rules for declarations and supplements.

Civil

Rule 3.1115

The caption of a declaration must state the name of the declarant and must specifically identify the motion or other proceeding that it supports or opposes.

Probate

Rule 7.3(5)

"Supplement to a pleading" and "supplement" mean a pleading that modifies another pleading but does not allege facts or request relief materially different from the facts alleged or the relief requested in the supplemented pleading. A supplement to a pleading may add information to or may correct omissions in the modified pleading.

Rule 7.53(b)

A supplement to a pleading does not require additional notice of hearing, but a copy of a supplement to a pleading must be served if service of a copy of the pleading was required, unless waived by the court.

Rule 7.104(b)

(1) A supplement to a pleading must be signed and verified by one of the persons who were required to sign and verify the pleading that is supplemented. However, the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, accept for filing and consider a supplement to a pleading signed under penalty of perjury by an attorney for the party offering it, where the information contained in the supplement is particularly within the knowledge of the attorney.

(2) A Judicial Council form must not be used for a supplement to a pleading.

New Evidence

“The general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.) A defendant’s decision “to wait until the reply briefs to bring forth . . . evidence . . . when the [plaintiff] would have no opportunity to respond . . . [is] simply unfair.” (Id., citations omitted.) “A trial court [has] discretion whether to accept new evidence with the reply papers.” (Alliant Ins. Services, Inc. v. Gaddy (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1308.) “[T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case . . .” (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 241, citation omitted.)

Discretion Regarding New Evidence

Generally, courts have the discretion to consider new arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs, but ordinarily will not consider them unless there is "good cause" for doing so. (Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 336, 352-353; Shimmon v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 688, 694, fn. 3; Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 325, 335.) If a court does find "good cause" for considering a "reply" argument, then fairness dictates that the court give the opposing party an opportunity to fully respond to that argument. (See, e.g., Thornton v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1421; American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1446, 1453.) The same general rule applies to "reply" evidence. (See, e.g., Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 1171, 1183.)

Affidavits

Code of Civil Procedure § 2015.5 requires:

Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:

(a) If executed within this state:

“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct”: _____________ _________ (Date and Place)(Signature)

(b) If executed at any place, within or without this state:

“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct”: _____________ _________ (Date)(Signature)

Motions

If a motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, some courts have continued the motion in order to allow the moving party to file a timely supplemental declaration to address deficiencies in the motion.

Service

Electronic Service

“[I]f a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document is authorized when a party has agreed to accept service electronically in that action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6.) California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(b)(1)(A) requires that a notice of consent to electronic service be filed with the Court.

Proof of Service

In probate matters, a proof of service must be filed to show that all parties entitled to notice have been served for the Supplemental Declaration. (Prob. Code § 8110.)

Rulings for Supplemental Declaration in California

In the September 13 Minute Order, the Court ordered Petitioner to serve the Supplemental Declaration on Respondent. The Proof of Service attached to the Supplemental Declaration does not show that the Supplemental Declaration was served on Respondent—rather, it shows that a “Petition to Declare Mobile Home Park Abandoned” was served, which is not the correct document. A proof of service must set forth “the exact title of the document served and filed in the cause.” (CCP § 1013a(1).)

  • Name

    GLEN AIR MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS MIGUEL ALDERETTE

  • Case No.

    18STCP00277

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The court had continued the hearing from July 11, 2018 to August 1, 2018 to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to file a supplemental declaration. At the hearing on August 1, the court continued the hearing to the herein date to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to file a supplemental declaration in compliance with CCP §2015.5 by August 24, 2018.

  • Name

    ANSLEY WELLER VS MATT MAGANA

  • Case No.

    BC573414

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

The court’s ruling, however, did not find that proper notice had been provided with respect to the Supplemental Declaration. Rather, the court’s ruling as set forth in its minute order is: “[S]ervice of the Supplemental Declaration was improper, and Respondent was not afforded proper notice and an opportunity to respond to the Supplemental Declaration. The Court, therefore, cannot consider the Supplemental Declaration at this time.” (Minute Order, dated 10/30/18.)

  • Name

    GLEN AIR MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS MIGUEL ALDERETTE

  • Case No.

    18STCP00277

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As a result, Bluesky may file and serve a supplemental declaration of David Blain that complies with CCP § 2015.5 on or before April 12, 2017. The supplemental declaration may cure the § 2015.5 deficiency, but may not add any additional facts, statements, or evidence. The supplemental declaration should not re-attach the exhibits to the original Blain Declaration. The Court will treat that material as though it is attached to any supplemental declaration that is filed.

  • Name

    BLUESKY WEALTH ADVISORS VS RIC

  • Case No.

    MSC17-00006

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2017

  • Judge

    Ed Weil

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Plaintiff is to file a supplemental declaration five (5) court days before the next hearing, identifying how the parties met and conferred, what discussions took place and what items remain in dispute.” Despite this, Plaintiff has not filed any supplemental declaration showing any efforts to meet and confer as ordered by the Court twice.

  • Name

    SUREFIRE UNDERGROUND CONSULTING VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

  • Case No.

    CVSW2000395

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

MP’s supplemental declaration now claims increased amounts for these items: $64 per month on the Citibank Sears card and $351 per month to “LoanMe.” MP’s supplemental declaration also now claims additional installment payments: (1) a monthly $325 payment to “Synchrony Bank,” and $110 per month for cell phone.

  • Name

    FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY VS GIBBONS CU-EN-CJC

  • Case No.

    30-2011-00525917-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2017

(c) The 6/15/17 supplemental declaration confirms that 16 installments of $57,500.00 paid quarterly, are to fund the subject settlement. However, the proposed distribution plan attached to the 6/15/17 supplemental declaration does not match the distribution plan set forth on page 4 of the revised Notice of Class Action Settlement and Settlement Hearing attached to Mr.

  • Name

    ROSALES VS. UPCS CA RESOURCES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00756943-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2017

There is no proof of service filed for the Supplemental Declaration filed September 18, 2019. If the court is provided satisfactory proof that those persons entitled to notice were provided the Supplemental Declaration as required by law, 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 Supplemental Declaration filed September 18, 2019 is granted as prayed. DMS

  • Name

    IN RE THE ESTATE OF JAMES EDGAR VANASSEE, DECEASED

  • Case No.

    FPR049619

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

The Court infers that Plaintiffs failure to file the responsive supplemental declaration was due to counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. For that reason, the Court continues this hearing and orders Plaintiffs to file with the Court on or before October 14 an identical version of the supplemental declaration served on Defendants on or before September 22, 2022. No further briefing or declarations may be filed.

  • Name

    EFSTATHIOU VS CLESCERI

  • Case No.

    CVPS2102357

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

PROOF OF SERVICE: · CONTINUE hearing on application for admission pro hac vice for submission of supplemental declaration. ANALYSIS Application To Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney: Geoffrey S. Harper The hearing on the application to appear pro hac vice is CONTINUED to May 31, 2019 for submission of a supplemental declaration which addresses the above-identified deficiencies. Supplemental declaration is due by May 24, 2019.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    18STCV0237575

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

There is no proof of service on file for the Supplemental Declaration of Deborah Young in Response to Tentative Ruling on Petition for Final Distribution, 2nd Supplemental Declaration of Deborah Young in Response to Tentative Ruling for Final Distribution and 3rd Supplemental Declaration of Deborah Young in Response to DMS Tentative Ruling on Petition for Final Distribution filed on September 16, 2019. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.53.) 3.

  • Name

    IN RE THE ESTATE OF IDA LEE TALTON, DECEASED

  • Case No.

    FPR048275

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

The Court provided that if the meet and confer efforts are not successful, Plaintiff can file a supplemental declaration nine (9) court days prior to the hearing date, July 19, 2021. Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration was due by July 6, 2021. Although the Court afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to meet and confer and to meet her burden, no supplemental declaration has timely been filed by Plaintiff.

  • Name

    BOURGEOIS VS. HCR MANOR CARE SERVICES, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01141757

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2021

The Court requires a supplemental declaration providing a copy of the Summary Notice in the Spanish-language newspaper, La Opinion, and the date the notice was published. 2. The Court requires a supplemental declaration of counsel providing authenticated copies of billing statements in compliance with Section G.4 of the Amendment to CMO entered on March 6, 2017. The Court declines the plaintiff’s suggestion that these documents be lodged and reviewed in camera rather than filed.

  • Name

    MARTINEZ VS NORMS RESTAURANTS LLC

  • Case No.

    RIC1512432

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2017

Counsel has filed a supplemental declaration, which now indicates he personally served the client with copies of the motion papers filed with this declaration. However, no proof of service has been filed with this Court, and the proof of service for the supplemental declaration still indicates electronic service.

  • Name

    JOAN CHEROTI VS TRINA PATTERSON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV03704

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On March 4, 2022, the Court issued an Order continuing the hearing on the motion, finding that a supplemental declaration from Paras Doshi and Tejas Doshi s counsel was necessary . On March 18, 2022, Tejas Doshi and Paras Doshi filed a supplemental declaration of their counsel in support of the motion for attorneys fees . No response to the supplemental declaration was filed by Plaintiff.

  • Name

    NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY VS ARVIND DOSHI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV25324

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The court had continued the hearing on the herein motion to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to file a supplemental declaration to clarify discrepancies in his declaration supporting the motion. On July 12, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel David J. Shapiro filed a “Supplemental Declaration” but it does not comply with CCP §2015.5. Thus, the court cannot consider this document.

  • Name

    DOLORES BATTEN ET AL VS MARICARMEN HERRERA

  • Case No.

    BC537414

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

The matter was continued to today’s date to permit the Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration addressing the qualifications of the Settlement Administrator. The supplemental declaration has not been filed. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, April 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 to provide Plaintiff additional time in which to file the Supplemental Declaration.

  • Case No.

    195317

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was continued to today’s date to permit the Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration addressing the qualifications of the Settlement Administrator. The supplemental declaration has not been filed. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, April 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 to provide Plaintiff additional time in which to file the Supplemental Declaration.

  • Case No.

    195317

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was continued to today’s date to permit the Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration addressing the qualifications of the Settlement Administrator. The supplemental declaration has not been filed. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, April 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 to provide Plaintiff additional time in which to file the Supplemental Declaration.

  • Case No.

    195317

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was continued to today’s date to permit the Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration addressing the qualifications of the Settlement Administrator. The supplemental declaration has not been filed. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, April 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 to provide Plaintiff additional time in which to file the Supplemental Declaration.

  • Case No.

    195317

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was continued to today’s date to permit the Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration addressing the qualifications of the Settlement Administrator. The supplemental declaration has not been filed. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, April 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 to provide Plaintiff additional time in which to file the Supplemental Declaration.

  • Case No.

    195317

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was continued to today’s date to permit the Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration addressing the qualifications of the Settlement Administrator. The supplemental declaration has not been filed. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, April 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 to provide Plaintiff additional time in which to file the Supplemental Declaration.

  • Case No.

    195317

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The Supplemental Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez regarding objections and exclusions was filed on December 13, 2019. The deadline for objections and exclusions was December 9, 2013. Given the short time between the deadline and the supplemental declaration, it is possible that objections or additional exclusions arrived after the declaration was submitted. The administrator should submit a supplemental declaration either identifying additional exclusions/objections or confirming there are none.

  • Name

    VALLE DE NIETO VS BRISTOL INDUSTRIES LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01006461-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

The Court's docket reflects that on July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed three versions of the supplemental declaration of David Moskowitz, M.D. (each 2,337 pages), and three versions of the supplemental declaration of James Hult, M.D. (each 2,336 pages), as follows: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG20079779: Williams VS ValleyCare Medical Center 03/13/2024 Hearing on Motion to Seal MEDICAL RECORDS ATTACHED TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JOHN E. HULT, M.D.

  • Name

    WILLIAMS VS VALLEYCARE MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    RG20079779

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2024

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

A supplemental declaration of Garay was filed timely, and a supplemental declaration of Amaya was filed late, but there is no compliance with the remaining portions of the Court’s order. Still missing are a revised order and an amended or supplemental declaration from the administrator.

  • Name

    REYES VS PSLQ INC

  • Case No.

    MCC1400703

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

This would allow the petitioner to marshal any assets as indicated in the Supplemental Declaration. (Prob. Code §§ 8481; 8483.) DMS

  • Name

    IN RE THE ESTATE OF SOLOMAN LORENZO JONES, DECEASED

  • Case No.

    FPR049826

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

The matter was originally on calendar on April 25, 2022 but was continued to today’s date to permit the moving party to submit a supplemental declaration. The supplemental declaration was ordered to be filed no later than May 16, 2022. No supplemental declaration was filed by that date.

  • Case No.

    CVPO20-0194712

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was originally on calendar on April 25, 2022 but was continued to today’s date to permit the moving party to submit a supplemental declaration. The supplemental declaration was ordered to be filed no later than May 16, 2022. No supplemental declaration was filed by that date.

  • Case No.

    CVPO20-0194712

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was originally on calendar on April 25, 2022 but was continued to today’s date to permit the moving party to submit a supplemental declaration. The supplemental declaration was ordered to be filed no later than May 16, 2022. No supplemental declaration was filed by that date.

  • Case No.

    CVPO20-0194712

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was originally on calendar on April 25, 2022 but was continued to today’s date to permit the moving party to submit a supplemental declaration. The supplemental declaration was ordered to be filed no later than May 16, 2022. No supplemental declaration was filed by that date.

  • Case No.

    CVPO20-0194712

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The matter was originally on calendar on April 25, 2022 but was continued to today’s date to permit the moving party to submit a supplemental declaration. The supplemental declaration was ordered to be filed no later than May 16, 2022. No supplemental declaration was filed by that date.

  • Case No.

    CVPO20-0194712

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

The Court’s minute order from August 13, 2020 plainly stated that Plaintiff was to file a supplemental declaration “addressing the failure to appear at the hearing that was scheduled for January 22, 2020.” (Minute Order, 8/13/20 (emphasis added).) The Court’s instruction could not have been more clear. Yet Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration fails to address the January 22, 2020 hearing in any way. (Motion, Supp. Wells Decl.)

  • Name

    HOUSE OF BAIL BONDS INC. VS ANNETTE ELIZABETH HOGAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STLC03568

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

The following corrections are required: Section E.21 re location of settlement agreement Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a supplemental declaration with both the original Settlement Agreement and the Addendum to Settlement Agreement attached and that supplemental declaration shall be referenced in the Notice as the location of the Settlement Agreement and the Addendum to Settlement Agreement. The supplemental declaration is necessary for two reasons.

  • Name

    HAUGEN VS BIG LEAGUE DREAMS CATHEDRAL CITY

  • Case No.

    RIC1515377

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

Per the Proof of Electronic Service filed 22 8/11/2023, Respondent was electronically served with the Supplemental Declaration on 8/10/2023. 23 4) After reviewing all relevant pleadings filed in this matter, including Petitioner’s 8/11/2023 24 Supplemental Declaration, the Court will sign the proposed order attached as Exhibit B to Petitioner’s 25 8/11/2023 Supplemental Declaration, with one addition: The Court’s jurisdiction to reallocate and / or 26 to recharacterize the proceeds

  • Case No.

    FDI-10-771615

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2023

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

In the instant petition, petitioner indicated that a supplemental declaration would be filed regarding the outcome of the April 19, 2023 hearing in the Probate Department; however, no such supplemental declaration has been lodged with the court. The court continues the hearing to Wednesday, May 3, 2023.

  • Case No.

    ['20CECG03651', '22CEPR01343. All', '22CEPR01343) to establish,']

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration from Mr. Torres addressing any benefits received by him as a result of prosecuting this action. Plaintiff to provide a supplemental declaration from the administrator explaining why the amount requested for the administrator exceeds the flat fee of $10,000.00 and providing a detailed description (or invoice) for the work performed to date and an explanation of the charges for services to be performed if final approval is granted.

  • Name

    TORRES VS POINT 2 POINT GLOBAL SECURITY

  • Case No.

    RIC1708613

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2018

Since that time, moving party has failed to file a supplemental declaration notifying the court of the status of the meet and confer discussions. The motion for failure to comply with the court’s previous order.

  • Name

    LE ELEGANT BATH,INC. VS. PRECISION BRASS SERVICES

  • Case No.

    RIC1210918

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2019

Therefore, Defense Counsel must file and serve a supplemental declaration stating generally the grounds for each motion to withdraw, for example, “irreconcilable differences,” without referencing attorney-client privileged communications. If Defense Counsel submits such a supplemental declaration at or before the November 9, 2016 hearing, together with proof of service for the supplemental declaration, the Court would be inclined to proceed on the merits of the motion to withdraw.

  • Name

    WAYNE PROVISION CO INC VS DIVERSIFIED COATINGS & LININGS CO

  • Case No.

    16K06998

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file and serve a supplemental declaration stating generally the grounds for the motion to withdraw, for example, “irreconcilable differences,” without referencing attorney-client privileged communications. If Plaintiff’s Counsel submits such a supplemental declaration at or before the June 19, 2017 hearing, together with proof of service for the supplemental declaration, the court would be inclined to proceed to the merits of the motion to withdraw.

  • Name

    CHAPMAN, COURTNEY VS MARTIN, JOHANNA

  • Case No.

    16K04423

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file and serve a supplemental declaration stating generally the grounds for each motion to withdraw, for example, “irreconcilable differences,” without referencing attorney-client privileged communications. If Plaintiff’s Counsel submits such a supplemental declaration at or before the October 12, 2016 hearing, together with proof of service for the supplemental declaration, the court would be inclined to proceed to the merits of the motions to withdraw.

  • Name

    OSORIO, JOSE VS TEJADA, LILIANA

  • Case No.

    15K01898

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

Case Number: 22PSCV00410 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: L At the February 6, 2023, hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment in this matter, the court continued the matter for counsel to submit a supplemental declaration. Counsel filed the supplemental declaration on March 23, 2023. After reviewing the supplemental declaration of counsel, the court is still not satisfied. Importantly, items of concern 4 and 5 are not addressed by the declaration of counsel.

  • Name

    REBECCA CASTILLO VS BENIHANA INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22PSCV00410

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court notes that if a supplemental declaration is provided prior to/or at the time of hearing, the Court would be inclined to consider the moving papers on the merits.

  • Name

    INTERNATIONAL COLLECTION CORPO VS. KWAN, VICTOR

  • Case No.

    05CV2840

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Counsel appeared at the hearing and requested a continuance, and the matter was placed on the review calendar to monitor for filing of a supplemental declaration addressing the requirements of the Insurance Code. The supplemental declaration has now been filed and reviewed by the Court. Based on the Petition and supporting documents, the Court intends to GRANT the Petition. A proposed order has been submitted and will be executed by the Court.

  • Name

    IN RE FARRIS

  • Case No.

    SCRDCVPT18-0189796-000

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2018

There has been no filing of the supplemental declaration that provides the court with information needed to determine the motion. On August 8, 2018, moving party was directed to file a supplemental declaration.

  • Name

    FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION VS QUALLEY

  • Case No.

    RIC432538

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

If the supplemental declaration is timely filed and served, and complies with this order, the court is inclined to grant the motions at the October 5 hearing. Allstate shall email a courtesy copy of the supplemental declaration to the Department 511 clerk at dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov.

  • Name

    LIU VS ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    HG21105973

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2021

As such, the hearing on the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is CONTINUED to April 28, 2017 for submission of a supplemental declaration which addressed the deficiencies identified above. Supplemental declaration is due 14 days prior to the continued hearing date. Any supplemental opposition may be filed and served 7 days prior to hearing, limited to addressing any new issues raised by said supplemental declaration. Moving Party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • Name

    EDWARD GONZALEZ ET AL VS SHOOSHANI DEVELOPERS LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC600771

  • Hearing

    Mar 30, 2017

The Court requests that plaintiff's counsel prepare and submit a supplemental declaration containing a summary of the total number of hours worked by each professional and the hourly rates sought for each professional. Plaintiff's counsel may want to create a chart or spreadsheet containing this information. This information will assist the Court in determining a lodestar amount of attorney fees. Plaintiff shall file and serve the supplemental declaration by September 18, 2020.

  • Name

    VU VS TEN PERFECT TIPS NAILS & SPA INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00036951-CU-BC-NC

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

At the August 11, 2022 hearing, the court granted leave to file a supplemental declaration. On August 16, 2022, plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration. Upon review of the supplemental declaration, the court grants the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement.

  • Name

    VERONICA DURAN VS. PITMAN FARMS, INC. / COMPLEX / CLASS ACTION

  • Case No.

    18CECG01995

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Plaintiff’s Dec. 10, 2018 supplemental declaration stated the response to No. 6 was deficient because it was incomplete. But Plaintiff does not specify what is missing. The supplemental declaration makes no argument about the response to No. 8, and instead repeats the argument about No. 6. Plaintiff complains Defendant failed to meet and confer.

  • Name

    ADAM KHATIBI VS JOAN M MCDONALD ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC682121

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

On May 25, 2018, Tatia filed a Second Supplemental Declaration. Having reviewed the Second Supplemental Declaration, the Court finds that it fails to satisfy all the requirements of Prob. Code § 13101. For the foregoing reasons, the hearing on the instant Motion is CONTINUED to July 12, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. Tatia is to file a supplemental declaration satisfying all the requirements of Prob. Code § 13101 by July 2, 2018. Court clerk to give notice.

  • Name

    QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP VS 3904 PLATT AVE LYNWOOD

  • Case No.

    17K03080

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Note: Supplemental Declaration filed 1-30-2023 contains an amended accounting. Supplemental Declaration was filed 1-30-2023 with a hearing date typed in of 03-01- 2023. See Local Rule 7.50. This calendar was full as of that date. This declaration is an amendment and no date has been calendared for this amendment.

  • Name

    CONSERVATORSHIP OF DAVID LEE BUDD

  • Case No.

    MSP21-01749

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

The Motion caption pertains to “supplemental declaration of James Hult, M.D. and David Moskowitz, M.D., attaching medical records they reviewed to form their opinions in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Hospital Et al. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication.” The court's docket reflects that on July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed three versions of the supplemental declaration of David Moskowitz, M.D. (each 2,337 pages), and three versions of the supplemental declaration of James Hult, M.D.

  • Name

    WILLIAMS VS VALLEYCARE MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    RG20079779

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2023

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

The Court has since reviewed the Supplemental Declaration of Atoy H. Wilson, the Declaration of Brian E. Cole II, and the Second Supplemental Declaration of Atoy H. Wilson. The Courts concerns are satisfied.

  • Name

    LUIS GARCIA, , AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES VS CAR AROMA SUPPLIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV22269

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration provides that $202,450.69 was recovered from the foreclosure short sale. Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration also provides an interest calculation. However, the numbers do not establish how the principal balance resulted in $47,775.40. The complaint alleges Plaintiff and Defendant entered the loan agreement for $300,000 on January 10, 2013. The complaint alleges that Defendant agreed to pay 6% interest.

  • Name

    HANA SMALL BUSINESS LENDING INC VS NAM JOE KIM

  • Case No.

    BC667556

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

Notice Of Motion An Motion To Strike The Supplemental Declaration Set for hearing on Wednesday, January 11, 2012, Line 3, DEFENDANT PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (CALTRAIN)'S Motion To Strike The Supplemental Declaration IS Off calendar as moot due to the filing of the amended complaint. =302/HK

  • Name

    ROBERT LIGHTFOOT VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08483640

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2012

VTA’s objections to the Ralls Supplemental Declaration are moot.

  • Name

    SKANSKA-SHIMMICK-HERZOG, A JOINT VENTURE, ET AL VS. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL

  • Case No.

    20-CIV-02854

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2021

  • Judge

    HONORABLE V. RAYMOND SWOPE

  • County

    San Mateo County, CA

This issue, however, may be remedied in a supplemental declaration. Defendant’s declaration also fails to explain when he learned about this lawsuit. However, in his memorandum the Defendant states that he did not learn about this lawsuit until February 10, 2019. Information about when and how the Defendant learned of this lawsuit needs to be included in a declaration. This issue too, may be remedied in a supplemental declaration.

  • Name

    PLEASANTON READY MIX VS. KUMAR

  • Case No.

    MSC18-00694

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Plaintiff's supplemental declaration must be filed on or before February 8, 2019. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS LANGLOIS FAMILY LAW ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC661058

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

Exhibit B attached to the "supplemental declaration" filed on 8/2/21 was just for the items sold by Maxsold, not those sold by Amazing Adventures or Oakland Silver & Gold. Paragraph 4 of the "supplemental declaration" filed on 8/2/21 does not sufficiently explain why there were "Conserv. Fees Owed to Trust" on 3/19/19. When were those fees ordered in the conservatorship case? And what do fees have to do with advanced costs?

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF THE THE MARGARET E. LOPRESTI 1998 TRUST

  • Case No.

    PTR17301409

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2021

  • Judge

    HELEN TROWBRIDGE

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Plaintiff’s counsel is thus ordered to provide a supplemental declaration with the actual written responses that counsel contends were served in June 2019, including the verifications and proofs of service, along with any other evidence that substantiates Plaintiff’s contentions. The supplemental declaration is to be filed and served by October 14, 2019.

  • Name

    CRUZ SANDOVAL VS GERONIMO ZEPEDA

  • Case No.

    BC714703

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

The Court requests that defendants/cross-complainants' counsel prepare and submit a supplemental declaration containing a summary of the total number of hours worked by each professional. Counsel may want to create a chart or spreadsheet containing this information. This information will assist the Court in determining a lodestar amount of attorney fees. Defendants/cross-complainants shall file and serve the supplemental declaration by September 18, 2020.

  • Name

    ALBERTINI VS. ACEBO

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00003732-CU-NP-NC

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

Saati filed a supplemental declaration in support of her Application. The declaration attaches three additional exhibits. However, Mrs. Saati has not submitted a Proof of Service showing that the supplemental declaration and exhibits were served on the Plaintiffs. Mrs. Saati is ORDERED to file a Proof of Service showing that the supplemental declaration and exhibits were served on Plaintiff on or before April 12, 2021. Further, since Mrs.

  • Name

    ROSEN VS. SAATI ENTERPRISES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01010759

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2021

Kroeger supplemental declaration. Plaintiff Welk Resort Group may file a supplemental brief addressing the supplemental declaration by no later than October 15, 2018. No further papers may be filed by ARCOA.

  • Name

    WELK RESORT GROUP INC VS. AVIARA RESIDENCE CLUB OWNER'S ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00023673-CU-BC-NC

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2018

Tentative Ruling: The Court is in receipt of the supplemental declaration of the administrator indicating distribution of the funds in accordance with the Court’s order and judgment on November 7, 2022. The supplemental declaration indicates that 312 checks totaling $6,574.61 remained uncashed and, on August 4, 2023, these funds were sent to Reedley Boys and Girls Club, in accordance with the approved settlement. No appearances are required.

  • Name

    MONTES, ANTONIO VS. TRINITY PACKING COMPANY, INC.

  • Case No.

    VCU286784

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2023

  • County

    Tulare County, CA

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration to address these issues. On May 11, 2021, the court denied Plaintiff’s supplemental package. On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a second supplemental declaration. I.

  • Name

    WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC , A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SHUAN HUDSON

  • Case No.

    20STCV44558

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2021

The new supplemental declaration(s) must be from the client, not by an attorney who lacks personal knowledge. Accordingly, the tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on this motion to March 2, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. The new supplemental declaration(s) must be filed by February 14, 2018. A new Final Fairness Hearing date will need to be selected. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice to defense counsel unless notice is waived.

  • Name

    AYALA VS. VEG-LAND, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00738775-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2018

Plaintiff was to take the remaining motion off calendar if supplemental responses were acceptable, or to file a supplemental declaration advising the Court of the remaining issues. The Court does not see that a supplemental declaration has been filed. Accordingly, unless Plaintiff appears at the hearing to request a continued hearing date so that he may file a supplemental declaration, the Motion will be taken off calendar.

  • Name

    ADAM KHATIBI VS JOAN M MCDONALD ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC682121

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Respondent City And County Of San Francisco'S Motion To Strike And Objection To The Supplemental Declaration Of Kathy Devincenzi And The Adminstrative Record; Or In The Alternative, Motion To Continue Hearing Respondent City and County of San Francisco's Motion to Strike and objection to the supplemental Declaration of Kathy Devincenzi and the Administrative record; or in the alternative, motion to continue hearing. Respondent's motion to strike is Denied. =(302/CWW/PB)

  • Name

    SAN FRANCISCANS FOR LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, AN UNIN VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF04504780

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2009

The hearing is continued to September 22, 2021, at 8:30 in Department 7 to allow moving party to file a supplemental declaration. Defendant has leave to file a supplemental declaration on or before September 15, 2021.

  • Name

    MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC VS KIM

  • Case No.

    RIC2004056

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

As the proposed Long Form Notice attached as Exhibit 2 to the Supplemental Declaration is the document which incorporates the Court’s prior directions and addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will require use of the Long Form Notice and service of the same upon the Class Members. Additionally, the parties should update the Settlement Agreement to reflect this change. (See §4.2 and §4.3 of Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1 of Supplemental Declaration)). 3.

  • Name

    MALIK VS. INTERNATIONAL COFFEE & TEA, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00900728-CU-BT-CXC

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

Doheny Drive Unit 205, Los Angeles, CA 90048 address is the last known address, serve a copy of all moving papers and his supplemental declaration to this last known address via certified mail with return receipt requested, and file a supplemental declaration checking off item 3(b)(2)(a) on the second page of form MC-052. Counsel served this motion on all other parties in the case. Counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing and submit a corrected proposed order on form MC-053.

  • Name

    REGENCY LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC ET AL VS JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOV

  • Case No.

    BC710606

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

Counsel’s supplemental declaration should attach a copy of the September 15, 2021 letter to the LWDA. (Daily Decl., ¶ 8.)

  • Name

    CELIS VS EARL ADAMS TILE-COPING & PLASTERING, INC.

  • Case No.

    HG21112823

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2024

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

The court requires a supplemental declaration confirming that those checks actually were sent to the payees. Plaintiffs should file the supplemental declaration as soon as possible before the hearing so that the tentative ruling may be updated.

  • Name

    BENDER VS. MRC SMART TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00824068-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

(“Defendant Farheap”) filed its Reply on April 27, 2017, and, in support of that Reply, filed the Supplemental Declaration of Benjamin A. Nix on the same date. Defendant Farheap’s Motion for Attorney's Fees is continued to May 25, 2017. Plaintiff Roumen Antonov may file and serve a supplemental opposition addressing the attachments to the Supplemental Declaration of Benjamin A. Nix, by not later than May 12, 2017. Defendant Farheap to give notice.

  • Name

    ANTONOV VS. FARHEAP SOLUTIONS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2013-00632085-CU-OE-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2017

Tentative Rulings: This matter is continued to January 20, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept 1 and counsel for Defendant is ordered to file and serve its proposed answer in the form of a supplemental declaration to this Motion. Should the Court receive such supplemental declaration prior to the continued hearing, it will come off calendar, no appearances will be required and the Court will grant the motion and order the default to be set aside.

  • Name

    BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. VS. LOPEZ, ELIAS CAMACHO

  • Case No.

    VCL 194310

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2021

  • County

    Tulare County, CA

The court requires a supplemental declaration confirming that those checks actually were sent to the payees. Plaintiffs should file the supplemental declaration as soon as possible before the hearing so that the tentative ruling may be updated.

  • Name

    BENDER VS. MRC SMART TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00824068

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

Park The hearing on the application to appear pro hac vice is CONTINUED to June 28, 2019 for submission of a supplemental declaration which addresses the above-identified deficiencies. Supplemental declaration is due by June 24, 2019.

  • Name

    CHARLES AN ET AL VS SK CHEMICALS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC569190

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

However, the court is continuing the Motion because plaintiff has not been given sufficient opportunity to refute or object to any statements in the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Soliman. Further, defendant did not file an amended Separate Statement referring to evidence in the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Soliman. As defendant is relying on evidence not previously provided when the moving papers were due, plaintiff should be given the opportunity to respond.

  • Name

    MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS INC VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00019755-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

A proof of service must be filed to show that all parties entitled to notice have been served for the Supplemental Declaration. (Prob. Code §8110.)

  • Name

    IN RE THE ESTATE OF THOMAS PETER KOHANSKI, DECEASED

  • Case No.

    FPR049518

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second supplemental declaration of John A. Young. The supplemental declaration provides a detailed analysis of how Plaintiff’s expert calculated the potential value of this case. One of the issues facing Plaintiff is the argument often made by employers that violations cannot be stacked.

  • Name

    RAZO-ORREGO VS POPPY BANK

  • Case No.

    SCV-268515

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2023

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

The court has reviewed the supplemental declaration submitted by the Plaintiffs. The supplemental declaration and revised form of notice adequately addresses the court’s concerns. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is granted.

  • Name

    RIVERS V. VEOLIA

  • Case No.

    SCV-255350

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2018

Park The Court continued the previous hearings on this application for submission of a supplemental declaration to address deficiencies identified by the Court. No such supplemental declaration was provided. Accordingly, the hearing on the application to appear pro hac vice is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Name

    CHARLES AN ET AL VS SK CHEMICALS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC569190

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration detailing the parties meet and confer efforts. Plaintiff filed an untimely supplemental declaration on July 31, 2023. ANALYSIS According to Plaintiffs counsels supplemental declaration, Plaintiff took the deposition of Lorenzo Gomez on July 6, 2023. (Jacob Decl. ¶ 3.) The deposition revealed that another employee, Angel Martinez, was the individual responsive to certain of the categories of Plaintiffs notice.

  • Name

    MARTHA OLIVARES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV18752

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Revised paperwork is to be submitted addressing all changes to be made to the settlement, class notice, opt out form, and proposed order in accordance with the issues raised in 9/14/16 Minute Order, as addressed by counsel’s supplemental declaration.

  • Name

    ALLEN VS. GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2013-00685122-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2016

Fores, the Court finds that the evidence supports the lodestar amount for each biller as reflected in the Supplemental Declaration of Lewis Soffer (at page 3) and the Supplemental Declaration of Robert P. Fores (at page 3). However, the Court finds that the total fees reflected in Mr. Fores’ Supplemental Declaration should be reduced by $2,527, as these amounts were not reflected in the initial moving papers.

  • Name

    PATTERSON FROZEN FOODS VS. PATTERSON VEGETABLE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    684866

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2018

The Court continued the hearing on the Demurrer, but to date, no supplemental declaration has been filed. Therefore, the Demurrer to the Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Name

    LJD PROPER, A CORPORATION VS FARIBORZ FRED HANASSAB

  • Case No.

    19STLC03126

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

The matter is therefore continued to Friday, June 22, 2018 at 9:00am to allow the Judgment Creditor to file the supplemental declaration to be heard, concurrently, with the body attachment return. No appearance on 5/25/18 are necessary.

  • Name

    T&T SUPPLIES VS. RISENHOOVER, ERIK

  • Case No.

    DSC09264

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2018

The application for admission pro hac vice by attorney Steven Leitess is CONTINUED to 6-28-18, at 2:00 p.m., in Department C-15 for hearing so that attorney Leitess can submit a supplemental declaration addressing the factors set forth at Rule 9.40(a). Attorney Leitess has presented evidence as to the factors set forth at Rule 9.40(b)(d) and (e). The supplemental declaration by attorney Steven Leitess is to be filed and served nine (9) court days before the continued hearing date of 6-28-18.

  • Name

    BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION VS. WHITE OAKS AUTO SERVICE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00960906-CU-CL-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2018

Notice Of Motion Andmotion To File The Supplemental Declaration Of Mark J. Murray, Ph.D., In Support Of Pltfs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction Under Seal Pursuant To Crc 2.550 And 2.551 SET FOR HEARING ON MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2007, LINE 2. PLAINTIFF PROTIVA BIOTHERAPUTICS INC. AND PROTIVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS (USA) INC'S motion To File The Supplemental Declaration Of Mark J. Murray, Ph.D., In Support Of PLAINTIFFS' Motion For Preliminary Injunction, Under Seal Pursuant To C.R.C.

  • Name

    PROTIVA BIOTHERAPUTICS INC ET AL VS. SIRNA THERAPEUTICS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC06450694

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2007

Defendant filed a supplemental declaration on March 15, 2019. Plaintiff filed an objection and opposition to the supplemental declaration on March 26, 2019.

  • Name

    RODNEY PEARSON VS ESTELA FLORES

  • Case No.

    17STLC03564

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

With the filing of the supplemental declaration on August 21, 2019, the Court will grant the request for conservator fees in the amount of $2,500. The request for attorney’s fees in the supplemental declaration is not appropriate. The request for attorney’s fees was denied on July 16, 2019.

  • Name

    CONSERVATORSHIP OF ROSALIA MENDEZ

  • Case No.

    PR25788

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

That 7/11/17 supplemental declaration confirms that the Administrator’s work is therefore completed, such that this final report is approved, and this court file closed as of 7-21-17.

  • Name

    7. MARTINEZ V. DR. FRESH, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00716816-CU-OE-CXC

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2017

* TENTATIVE RULING: * The Court continued this matter from February 14, 2018, requesting that counsel provide a supplemental declaration. Counsel’s supplemental declaration adds that the alleged claims involving finish carpentry and trim were $5,992.01, and that California Mantel disputes the claim.

  • Name

    KENNEDY VS. SHAPELL INDUSTRIES

  • Case No.

    MSC15-00203

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

Application To File Exhibits To Supplemental Declaration Of Tricia Daziel Under Seal Matter on calendar for Tuesday, May 26, 2015, Line 13, PLAINTIFF ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY'S Application To File Exhibits To Supplemental Declaration Of Tricia Daziel Under Seal. Continued to September 15, 2015, per agreement of the parties.

  • Name

    ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORP VS. J.T. THORPE & SON, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15544887

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2015

The parties were ordered to file a supplemental declaration by December 13, 2016 if the meet and confer was unsuccessful. As of this date, no supplemental declaration has been provided. Based on the foregoing, at this time the Court shall take this motion off calendar. Defendants/Cross-complainants to give notice.

  • Name

    GOUDARZI, JIM VS. JAFARLOU, SHAHB ABOLFAZL SAFAR

  • Case No.

    15A08014

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The supplemental declaration shall be filed no later than 5 court days prior to the continued hearing.

  • Name

    DONOVAN VS. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH

  • Case No.

    30-2021-01183688

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2021

Table 2 ofthe March 26, 2021 Second Supplemental Declaration of David P. Lanferman (Lanferman Second Supplemental Declaration), claims that a total of 212 hours performed by Rutan & Tucker attorneys, David P. Lanferman, Carrie Macintosh, and Alyssa Bussey Roy, for the PRA portion of this litigation. No billing records, other than records of work performed following appeal of this matter, are attached.

  • Name

    PETROVICH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

  • Case No.

    34-2016-80002289-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2021

The hourly rate of plaintiff’s attorney is set forth in the supplemental declaration, but few facts in support are provided. Hours incurred and general description of services are summarized, and an itemization of time and services is not provided.

  • Name

    BELL INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V. DD STONEBROOK DRIVE, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV375154

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2021

The Court notes that it has received and considered the Supplemental Declaration of KATE HARPER (filed on March 25, 2019). Given the additional facts contained in Ms. Harper’s supplemental declaration, her application is granted. It is ORDERED that KATE HARPER, successor-in-interest for Deceased Defendant MATTHEW GRILL, be substituted as Defendant in the place and stead of the decedent.

  • Name

    CRUNCH FITNESS & HEALTH, LLC VS MLG DEVELOPMENT

  • Case No.

    VC066078

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2019

As such motion is continued for MP’s counsel to submit a supplemental declaration attaching thereto the contracts at issue, establishing where they were located either in the XCs or elsewhere in the litigation, and highlighting the applicable attorney fee provision(s). Supplemental declaration to be filed 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.

  • Name

    SKILLED HEALTHCARE VS. DHARMA CONSTRUCTION

  • Case No.

    30-2011-00509489-CU-FR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope