What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

226-250 of 3489 results

SEON JOO CHUNG VS HEE SOO LEE, ET AL.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration on or before October 5, 2020, outlining the good faith meet and confer efforts conducted. Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN RE THE ESTATE OF GLORIA C. RAY, DECEASED

The court has reviewed the Supplemental Declaration filed June 29, 2020 and the Proof of publication filed August 10, 2020 which resolved the outstanding issues. The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The second petition is granted as prayed. The will of Gloria C. Ray dated November 3, 2017 is ordered admitted to probate. The court appoints Nicole Marie Boes as executor with full authority under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. Bond is waived.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

MEINERS OAKS VS. MOLL

The Court also finds that there are no "exceptional circumstances" justifying the consideration of Cross-Defendants' "reply" evidence in the form of the supplemental declaration of Jeffrey Smith and exhibits thereto.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TRAVELERS PROPERTY VS. ICON COMMERCIAL

Ct. 3.1324(b) The Court finds the Declaration and Supplemental Declaration of Gary Berticevich substantially comply with Cal. R. Ct. 3.1324(b) and make the showing required under the applicable sections of the Code of Civil Procedure including § 473(a).

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: CONSIDER SANCTIONS FT FILE ACCTNG (M. STURGILL) SET BY D14 ON 1/3/20

Proof of mailing Supplemental Declaration of Ronald Sutcliffe filed 8-7-2020 to all persons entitled to receive notice or waivers of notice. Notes: 1. Petitioner advanced fees to himself of $3,250.00 without a court order, as referenced at ¶ 25. Petitioner requests to reduce his commission by this amount. See ¶ 12 of Declaration filed 12-26-19. 2. Declaration of Ronald Sutcliffe filed 12-26-19 requests authority to pay creditor’s claims from blocked account. See ¶ 8. 3.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: CONSIDER SANCTIONS FT FILE ACCTNG (M. STURGILL) SET BY D14 ON 1/3/20 PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE

Proof of mailing Supplemental Declaration of Ronald Sutcliffe filed 8-7-2020 to all persons entitled to receive notice or waivers of notice. Notes: 1. Petitioner advanced fees to himself of $3,250.00 without a court order, as referenced at ¶ 25. Petitioner requests to reduce his commission by this amount. See ¶ 12 of Declaration filed 12-26-19. 2. Declaration of Ronald Sutcliffe filed 12-26-19 requests authority to pay creditor’s claims from blocked account. See ¶ 8. 3.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

IN RE THE MATTER OF THE JOHNNY AGUILAR SETTLEMENT

The court has reviewed the Supplemental Declaration and the Proof of Service filed July 21, 2020 which resolve the outstanding issues with the petition. The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The petition as corrected by the Supplemental Declaration is granted as prayed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

JEFF GRABOW VS NEELAKANTAN ANAND, MD, ET AL.

On July 9, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion requiring Plaintiff to file an undertaking to August 24, 2020 to allow Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration and evidence showing Plaintiff’s indigency. Trial is set for November 6, 2020. PARTIES’ REQUEST Defendant Eli Baron M.D. (“Moving Defendant”) ask the Court to order Plaintiff to file an undertaking in the amount of $25,000.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GUZMAN VS FCA US, LLC

FCA is ordered to file a supplemental declaration which contains the supplemental responses and production that FCA alleges it served on 6/6/20 and 7/17/20. The declaration must be filed and served no later than 8/28/20. No other pleadings are permitted. No appearances necessary at the 8/28/20 hearing. Court to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

TUIFUA V. FS PALO ALTO EMPLOYMENT, INC.

The aggrieved 21 employees are security guards who worked for Defendant during the applicable time period. 4 22 (Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2; Supplemental Declaration of Robin G. Workman in Support of 23 Application for Approval of Settlement of Labor Code Section 2698, et seq., Private Attorneys 24 General Act of 2004 [] Claims (“Supp.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

BRADY V. PATENAUDE & FELIX

Plaintiff provided no explanation for 25 his untimely filings. 26 Two days before the hearing, Defendant filed a “Supplemental Declaration” providing 27 information about the settlement of a class action involving Defendant pending in another court. 28 The settlement took place in February and was preliminarily approved in May.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

TUNG VS SHELLEM

The supplemental declaration substantially complies with CRC 3.1324. Based on the declaration, supplemental declaration and supporting evidence, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that the amendment is proper and there was no significant delay in seeking leave to amend. Much of the Opposition to the Motion to File a FAC concerns the merits of Plaintiff’s proposed punitive damages claim.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

DOUGLAS EMMETT 1997, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS HARIS TAJYAR, ET AL.

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES: Moving party to submit a supplemental declaration stating the following: For each attorney, itemize how many hours were spent working on the case, breaking down into the following categories: 1. Pre-trial 2. Trial 3. Post-trial. Ex. Desmond Hines Pre-trial: 34 hours Trial: 20 hours Post-trial: 4 hours Total: ___ etc. for each attorney on the case.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

J.D. AQUINO CORPORATION VS PORTFOLIO ESCROW, INC., ET AL.

One day after the filing of the reply, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration containing responses verified by Jose Aquino, President of JD Aquino Corporation. Certain responses contain objections. "Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the circumstances of the case.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WASTE MANAGEMENT COLLECTION & RECYCLING INC VS CITY OF IRWIN

Improper opinion and legal conclusion Respondents’ Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike Portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Cheryl Lautman and the Declaration of Doug Corcoran Supplemental Declaration of Cheryl Lautman (1) Overruled. (2) Sustained. Declaration of Doug Corcoran (1) Sustained. As phrased (“on information and belief”), insufficient showing of personal knowledge and foundation. Speculation (2) Overruled. (3) Sustained. (4) Overruled. (5) Overruled. (6) Overruled.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HECTOR VS GORRILL ESQ

The court disregards the supplemental declaration which is outside the four corners of the complaint. The imposition of a duty of professional care toward third persons generally has been limited to those situations wherein the nonclient was an intended beneficiary of the attorney's services to the client, or where the foreseeability of harm to the nonclient as a consequence of professional negligence was not outweighed by other policy considerations. (Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1330.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BROADCAST MUSIC INC. VS CAFE MAFE INC.

On July 15, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration in support of its Petition and Respondent filed a second Response. No reply has been filed. II. Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award A. Legal Standard “Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator’s award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.” (O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

HECTOR VS GORRILL ESQ

The court disregards the supplemental declaration which is outside the four corners of the complaint. The imposition of a duty of professional care toward third persons generally has been limited to those situations wherein the nonclient was an intended beneficiary of the attorney's services to the client, or where the foreseeability of harm to the nonclient as a consequence of professional negligence was not outweighed by other policy considerations. (Schick v. Lerner (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1321, 1330.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARTHINSEN VS. ATTIC MASTERS

Supplemental Declaration, ¶7.) Counsel’s attempt to file an answer on Defendants’ behalf was rejected on January 21, 2020. (Watkins Supplemental Declaration, Ex. B.) Nothing else was filed prior to mid-March, when the Court closed due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Motion was filed promptly once the Court re-opened at the end of May.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

CHAVEZ V. FCA US LLC

The court will consider the Supplemental Declaration of James P. Mayo filed July 30, 2020, as it raises facially legitimate objections to specified billing entries. Plaintiff may file a response (to include a memorandum of no more than 5 pages, and an accompanying declaration) to Mayo’s Supplemental Declaration on or before Friday, September 4, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

WANDA JIMENEZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Because Plaintiff had offered no guidance regarding the proper calculation of prejudgment interest herein, Plaintiff was ordered to file a supplemental declaration, with exhibits as necessary, specifying (1) the rate of interest that is applicable; (2) the date on which prejudgment interest began to accrue; (3) the date on which prejudgment interest ceased to accrue; and (4) Plaintiff’s calculation of the amount of prejudgment interest due, with the basis for the calculation shown; and (5) any other information

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

ARTEMIO PEREZ ET AL VS JS UNION LLC ET AL

The newly filed petition references a supplemental declaration of Christopher Montes de Oca. (Petition, ¶¶ 8, 9c.) Christopher Montes de Oca declares that Claimant’s injuries are permanent and Claimant will not benefit from further speech therapy. (Oca Decl., ¶¶ 32, 59.) The Court finds this alleviates the first deficiency listed in the Court’s July 16, 2020 ruling.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

BROADCAST MUSIC INC. VS CAFE MAFE INC.

On July 15, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration in support of its Petition and Respondent filed a second Response. No reply has been filed. II. Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award A. Legal Standard “Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator’s award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.” (O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

IN RE THE ESTATE OF HARRY WILBUR DAVIS, DECEASED

The court has reviewed the Third Supplemental Declaration filed July 31, 2020 which resolves the outstanding issue from the last hearing. The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The petition as corrected by the Supplemental Declarations is granted as prayed, except that release of liability and discharge shall be ordered only upon the filing of the Ex Parte Petition for Final Discharge and Order once assets are distributed pursuant to Probate Code § 11753. DMS Page 3

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

IN RE THE ESTATE OF SHAWN KATHLEEN HILL, DECEASED

The Supplemental Declaration filed July 20, 2020 states that the creditor’s claim from Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. on behalf of Comcast Cable Comm. was settled DMS Page 7 on July 6, 2020. However, the petitioner has not filed the mandatory Allowance or Rejection of Creditor’s Claim (form DE-174) as required by Probate Code section 9250.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 140     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.