What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

26-50 of 3489 results

FLORES VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO [EFILE]

(Declaration of Oliveras; Supplemental Declaration of Oliveras; see also Plaintiffs' Ex. 9) While plaintiffs claim only 57 attestation forms were produced to them, that does not negate the fact that Ms. Oliveras testified as to an 89% compliance with the requirement for the 2016 training cycle. Although 100% compliance is not required, the fact that 89% complied suggests only there was room for improvement, but does not shown a failure to implement the policy such that its adoption was a mere formality.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CURTIN MARITIME CORP VS PACIFIC DREDGE AND CONSTRUCTION LLC

Plaintiff provides deposition testimony of Defendants' President Grant Westmorland, and Defendants provided a supplemental declaration from Westmorland, which indicates hull plates were welded together in Ensenada, Mexico and later transported to the United States which became part of the Sandpiper. Plaintiff provides the declaration of expert Thomas L. Willis, who declares that based on his review of Westmorland's testimony and documents, the Sandpiper was not eligible for coastwise endorsement.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WILLIAM SZYMACZAK V. NATURAL HEALING CENTER, LLC

Szymczak does not address this email in his supplemental declaration. At the very least, it raises an issue as to what discussions the parties had with respect to Orcutt and Lemoore. There is also a June 26, 2020 email from Mr. Szymczak to Jake German, NHC’s Controller, wherein Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ART LOS ANGELES VS 1717 UDT LLC

Hours Defendant’s supplemental declaration claims the following hours: Hours worked on the lis pendens expungement motion (for preparation of the motion itself and the reply): Attorney Hours Worked Ian S. Landsberg 6.70 Lisa K. Skaist 62.60 Defendant no longer seeks to recover for paralegal Kimberly Park’s 4.1 hours of work, or for Molly Madden’s 0.2 hours of work. Mr. Landsberg: A review of the supplemental declaration shows that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

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.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILBUR A OLIVAREZ VS AUSTRA MOTORS, INC., ET AL.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to file a supplemental declaration regarding the costs incurred. (Id.) To date, Defendants have not filed an opposition, and Plaintiff’s counsel has not filed a supplemental declaration regarding the costs sought.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

MITCHELL V LENTS HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST LENTS FORMER COUNSEL BY BLAKE WALTER DUNLAP, BLAKE WALTER DUNLAPINDEPENDENTEXECUTOR

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the hearing to be continued to October 21, 2020, and the moving party to submit supplemental declaration to be filed on or before October 12, 2020. Any reply to the supplemental declaration, ONLY, was to be filed and served on or before October 15, 2020 at noon. On October 07, 2020, a supplemental declaration of the moving party’s counsel, J.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

CYNTHIA MEYER VS FARMERS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL

Although Plaintiff has submitted a supplemental declaration on reply, which attempts to make the required statements under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b), the court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b). (See Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 [“The general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.”].) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AURIC ENERGY VS. RANGEL

On 10-8-2020, counsel for Moving Defendants filed a Second Supplemental Declaration indicating counsel for the parties agreed plaintiff would have until 9-12-2020, to submit to defense counsel the proposed SAC, and that as of 10-8-2020, plaintiff’s counsel had refused and failed to provide the proposed SAC to defense counsel. As of 10-9-2020, no SAC appears in the Court’s file.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

MARIA ESTRADA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

A supplemental declaration by Defendant regarding the further meet and confer efforts is ordered filed and served by email on or before November 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

BENITA TADENA VS. GUARANTEED RATE INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The Court has received the Supplemental Declaration of Derek Smith re: Distribution of Settlement Funds, filed October 13, 2020. The Court has also received the Stipulated Request for an Order Allowing Distribution of Supplemental Settlement Payment and Proposed Order. No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The Court will execute and file the Proposed Order. The Court sets the next compliance hearing for December 11, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BENITA TADENA VS. GUARANTEED RATE INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION

The Court has received the Supplemental Declaration of Derek Smith re: Distribution of Settlement Funds, filed October 13, 2020. The Court has also received the Stipulated Request for an Order Allowing Distribution of Supplemental Settlement Payment and Proposed Order. No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The Court will execute and file the Proposed Order. The Court sets the next compliance hearing for December 11, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In its supplemental declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel emphasizes that the Settlement Agreement is executed by the parties themselves. (3/24/20 Graziano Decl., ¶ 4.) However, the Settlement Agreement is not at issue; the Stipulation to dismiss and retain jurisdiction is. As noted above, the Stipulation was not signed by Plaintiff; it was signed by Plaintiff’s attorney, Ms. Davtyan. (10/20/17 Stipulation.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

YI HAN VS QINGYUN JIANG

Jiang also filed a supplemental declaration to explain that he “lived in Los Angeles between 2011 and approximately July 2016, while [he] attended the University of Southern California” but “moved back to China in approximately July 2016” and has “not lived in California, or anywhere in the United States, since approximately July 2016.” (Jiang Supplemental Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) Jiang asserts that since July 2016, any work he has done on behalf of US-based companies has been done primarily from China.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS COMMERCE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

On July 13, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration from its attorney, Christina Cicione. At the continued hearing on August 5, 2020, neither party appeared. (8/5/20 Minute Order.) The Court noted that although Petitioner’s counsel’s supplemental declaration stated exhibits 9-11 in support of the Petition were attached, exhibit 10 was incomplete and exhibit 11 was entirely missing. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

ECO TECHNOLOGY INC. VS ANABETH VELASCO

On 3/17/20, Respondent filed a response to the petition and request to vacate the arbitration award and on 9/22/20 Respondent’s attorney filed a supplemental declaration in support of the response and request to vacate. “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” CCP 1285. A response to such a petition may request the court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct or vacate the award. CCP 1285.2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

FRANCIS HUNG VS. PAOSHENG CHEN

Merits – On August 28, 2020 the Court allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a supplemental declaration of process server Ru-Ming Lee to state facts underlying the contention that Jane Doe was an ostensible agent of Defendant. Specifically, “. . . Plaintiff contends only that Jane Doe was a receptionist at Defendant's usual place of business.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY VS DEVONSHIRE SILVER PLAZA L

The Supplemental Declaration of Gomez On July 20, 2020, Mehta filed a supplemental declaration of her counsel, Gomez, in reply to DSP’s argument as to the absence of evidence from Mehta’s counsel with respect to the inability of counsel to present Mehta’s case at the January 2, 2020 arbitration proceeding due to the refusal of the requested continuance. In its July 28, 2020 ruling, the Court found that the supplemental declaration of Gomez was an improper attempt to reply to DSP’s reply papers.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NGUYEN VS. NGUYEN

Benedict to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Clients Christine Nguyen and Posh Shop are CONTINUED to 12/18/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department C14 for: (i) Proof of service of the moving papers upon Clients and all parties who have appeared in the action; (ii) Proof of service of notice of the advanced hearing date upon Clients; (iii) Proof of service of the continued hearing date upon Clients and all parties who have appeared in the action; and (iv) Filing of supplemental declaration no more than 30 days before

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

LUIS RODRIGUEZ VS. SECRET RECIPES, INC.

) · In his supplemental declaration, Mr. Abramson provides the tasks he performed, the dates they were performed, and the time spent on each of the days. (Abramson Suppl. Decl., ¶4.) Mr. Abramson seeks fees from July 31, 2018 to October 16, 2020. He seeks 39 hours at $375/hour, or a total of $39,375.00. (Id.) As an initial matter, Mr. Abramson states in his supplemental declaration that he is seeking 39 hours total at $375/hour and that this figure is $39,375.00 total.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The supplemental declaration of moving defendants submits various reports on the subject accident by the San Marino Police and the California Highway Patrol, which conclude that the accident was not caused by any defect in the vehicle, but by defendant Lin, who “likely misidentified the accelerator pedal as the brake pedal during the collision.” [Supp. Decl.,paras. 5-7, 13, Exs. A-C, I; Ex. A, p. CSM-0619].

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

JENNY BERES COACHING, LLC VS JERRY A. JACOBS, JR., ET AL.

According to the supplemental declaration, Jacobs is now 56 years old. The original declaration also states that Jacobs has never entered into a contract with plaintiff and never entered into a contract in California. [Jacobs Decl., paras. 6, 7]. Plaintiff argues that moving defendant is subject to specific jurisdiction in California.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

CJWORLD-LA, ET AL. VS 147-151 W. 25TH ST. LLC, ET AL.

In their supplemental declaration, Plaintiffs urge the Court to deny the motion to compel based on the possibility of conflicting rulings. Moreover, Plaintiffs state that they “are not inclined to dismiss their crossclaims against Moving Cross-Defendants.” (Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief p.5 Fn. 2.) Thus, it is clear at least some of the other parties do not agree to be bound by the arbitrator’s findings or to dismiss Moving Cross-Defendants from the underlying action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EASTVIEW TOWNHOUSE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION VS ALI CHEGINI, ET AL.

On August 3, 2020, Plaintiff paid an additional filing fee and on August 7, 2020, it filed a supplemental declaration. To date, no oppositions to the discovery motions have been filed. Legal Standard & Discussion A. Requests for Admission A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

TRANSCONTINENTAL AIR LLC VS. HEITSHUSEN

Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendant’s supplemental declaration are overruled. There is no dispute that Defendant’s motion is timely. Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (f). Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 140     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.