What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

101-125 of 3476 results

A C A LLC VS MYRON JEPPSON HOLMSTROM

However, Plaintiff’s declaration – and supplemental declaration – also utterly fail to comply with CRC 3.1324, as discussed below. Supporting Declaration Plaintiff’s declaration – and supplemental declaration – fail to explain (1) the effect of the amendments, (2) why the amendments are necessary and proper, and (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

ANTONIA BASURTO VS. MARKETSOURCE

The Court has received the Second Supplemental Declaration of Tim Cunningham on Behalf of CPT Group Inc. with respect to Disbursement (Supplemental Cunningham Declaration), filed September 18, 2020. No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The Supplemental Cunningham Declaration attests that the un-cashed amount of settlement checks ($354.96) has been distributed to the cy pres recipient, Boys Hope Girls Hope.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOHNIE HONEYCUTT VS. CALIFORNIA SIERRA EXPRESS INC

The Court has received the Supplemental Declaration of Cassandra Cita Regarding Disbursement of Settlement Funds, filed August 12, 2020 (Supplemental Cita Declaration). The Supplemental Cita Declaration attests that all payments have been made as required by the November 12, 2019 Order of Final Approval and Judgment, including the disbursement of the un-cashed amount to the cy pres recipient, Legal Aid at Work.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TERRI DAVIS VS. USRG (CALIFORNIA) INC

The Court has received the Supplemental Declaration of Norman Alcantara Regarding Disbursement (Supplemental Alcantara Declaration), filed September 18, 2020. No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The Supplemental Alcantara Declaration attests that all payments have been completed including the distribution of the un-cashed amount per the Court's prior order and judgment. In light of the completion of payments, the Court now deems the matter closed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JULIO P. AYALA, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendant is ordered to provide a supplemental declaration within fifteen days of this order. Both parties are to brief the court on the propriety of an amended opposition and reply. Discussion Case Background Plaintiffs Julio P. Ayala and Maria C.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY VS C J CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC., ET AL.

Defendant is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration on or before October 23, 2020, that outlines the additional meet and confer efforts conducted. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

IDUVINA ARTEAGA VS 1 THROUGH 100 DOES

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice (x2) Having considered the moving papers and supplemental declaration in support of the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff Maria L. Arteaga (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Afshin Farzadmehr aka Sean F. Mehr and Surgery Center of Beverly Hills, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MICHAEL JAMES PORTEOUS

AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION ATTACHING A COPY OF THE PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION TO VACATE BEING DENIED OR PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint When a motion to quash is brought concurrently with a motion to vacate default, the court must rule on the motion to vacate first. (Steven M.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI, ET AL. VS LYLE R. MINK, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Court’s consideration of the supplemental declaration of Thomas J. Weiss attached to Defendants’ Reply memorandum are SUSTAINED. Defendants did not obtain leave to submit additional evidence with their reply. The Plaintiffs’ sur-reply “Response to Evidentiary Objections of Defendant….” filed 9-21-20 is disregarded. Plaintiff did not obtain leave to submit a sur-reply.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTINE L. WESTFALL VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

The Court notes Plaintiff argues Defendant may not submit evidence in reply; however, Defendant’s evidence in reply properly addresses arguments raised by Plaintiff in opposition and, moreover, Plaintiff has filed no evidentiary objections to the supplemental declaration of Koo. (Opposition, pg. 7, fn. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MICHAEL JAMES PORTEOUS

AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION ATTACHING A COPY OF THE PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION TO VACATE BEING DENIED OR PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint When a motion to quash is brought concurrently with a motion to vacate default, the court must rule on the motion to vacate first. (Steven M.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANA MANCIA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

If the motion still needs to be heard, plaintiff shall file a supplemental declaration that addresses the deficiencies set forth herein, which is due 16 court days prior to the new hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MARITZA LUCERO ERNST VS EFRAIN DEL REAL

At least two weeks prior to the continued hearing date, Ernst must provide a supplemental declaration containing all of the required information. The Court will issue a detailed tentative ruling either finding the information sufficient, finding the information insufficient, or instructing Ernst to appear at the hearing and provide additional information. The 10/05/20 Case Management Conference is also continued to 10/22/20 at 8:30 a.m. Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

Yee) filed a supplemental declaration in opposition to the demurrer on September 8, 2020. Defendant’s objections to that supplemental declaration were filed on September 16, 2020. The objections are overruled. However, the Court notes that it has not treated the legal arguments within Ms. Yee’s declaration as evidence.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

POLARIS CENTRAL PARK, INC. VS BEL AIR INTERNET, LLC

On June 24, 2020, Petitioner filed a Response and Opposition to Respondent’s Request to Vacate (“Response/Reply”) and a supporting Supplemental Declaration of Meyers. On July 6, 2020, Respondent filed an Objection to Petitioner’s Response/Reply. On July 10, 2020, Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent’s Objection (“Sur-Reply”) with an additional Declaration of Meyers.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PERSLOW V KINGS COUNTY VENTURES

Bloom attached as Exhibit “K” to th supplemental declaration of Walt Whelan, Defendants’ objection that the motion was not serve on the non-party deponent, Stewart Bloom is overruled. Defendants’ objections of “privacy, relevancy and privilege,” were not timely raised (Cal. Civ. Proc.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MARITZA GARCIA VS TRINET HR II HOLDINGS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

On August 18, 2020, the Court requested a supplemental declaration regarding the contract to establish that the arbitration agreement was between UFSC and Plaintiff. On September 2, 2020, UFSC filed a second supplemental declaration in support. Legal Standard Under California and federal law, public policy favors arbitration as an efficient and less expensive means of resolving private disputes. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9; AT&T Mobility LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MANUEL DE LA CRUZ

On the same date, Defendant filed and served a supplemental declaration setting forth additional facts in support of the Motion and attaching a copy of his Notice of Motion. However, the supplemental declaration still did not comply with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subdivision (b) because it lacked supporting legal authority. At the second hearing on November 4, 2019, the Court continued the matter to give Defendant one final opportunity to comply with the Court’s order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION OF LAGUNA WOODS V. DICKINSON

The few excerpts of the deposition transcript attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Fred S. Peters in support of the Reply raise serious questions about the propriety of Dickinson’s conduct during the deposition. But Dickinson’s conduct at the deposition – which occurred in August 2020, long after the Motion was brought – is not the subject of the Notice of Motion and Motion and is not properly before the Court on this Motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SHARAREH REZVANI VS MENORAH HOUSING FOUNDATION

In a supplemental declaration filed on September 15, Plaintiff’s counsel states that discovery responses were served on September 14, 2020. Being untimely, Plaintiff’s responses must be verified and without objection. However, no copies of the responses were attached for the Court’s review.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ARMENTA V. SEACA PACKAGING, INC.

Now, plaintiff’s counsel has filed his supplemental declaration, explaining the amount of hours worked on the case, the tasks performed, and the hourly rates of the attorneys. (Suppl. Park decl., ¶¶ 8-11.) Counsel claims that his firm has billed over 280 hours on the case so far, which he values at $173,600. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DARSHAN THIND VS MUKHTIAR S KAMBOJ ET AL

Request for Judicial Notice Counsel Singh requests the court take judicial notice of: (1) the motions to be relieved as counsel filed by Singh on December 30, 2019, (2) the unsigned Proof of Service accompanying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Amandeep Kamboj’s Amended Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One), (3) the Supplemental Declaration of Andrei Serpik filed on March 23, 2020, (4) the fact that proofs of service were not filed with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining motions as

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MOURIS AHDOUT VS HEKMATJAH FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL

On August 6, 2020, the Transferee Defendants filed a Supplemental Declaration re: Attorney Fees, but the Transferee Defendants did not file a separate updated motion for attorney fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court continues the motion by the Transferee Defendants to a date to be set by the Clerk. The Court orders the Transferee Defendants to file and serve a separate updated motion for attorney fees and costs. All papers are to be filed per Code according to the new hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JASON ALAN VS. AUSTIN CAPITAL BANK SSB

The Court intends to continue the hearing on this matter so that attorney Huttenbach can file a supplemental declaration that complies with CRC, rule 9.40(a). Alternatively, the Court may question attorney Huttenbach under oath at the hearing in order to establish that he is not regularly employed in California, and that he is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

PAZ VS. FCA US, LLC

(See Reply, Supplemental Declaration of Esther Kim, ¶ 4.) Thus, Defendant’s request from waiver is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendant’s unverified responses to their RFP contained objections that have been waived under CCP § 2031.300. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to their RFP without Objections is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve its verified responses to Plaintiffs’ RFP, without objections, within 20 days. Plaintiffs to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 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.