What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

126-150 of 3489 results

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

CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

While the Supplemental Declaration of Briscoe explains when the facts giving rise to the inverse condemnation cause of action were discovered and why the Motion was not made earlier, it does not provide all of the other information required by the Rule. There is no explanation as to any other changes to the pleading.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

THEODORE VAUGHAN, ET AL. VS PRECIOSO CONSTRUCTION

On July 17, 2020, instead of filing supplemental proofs of service, Petitioners’ counsel filed a supplemental declaration. On September 8, 2020, Respondent filed a Notice of Failure to Cure and of Violation of Court Order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

CHARLES, ET AL. V. VARSITY TUTORS, LLC

(See 2 Supplemental Declaration of Rafael Nendel-Flores in Support of Defendant Varsity Tutors 3 LLC’s Motion for an Order Staying Action, Ex. 4. at Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative 4 Defenses to Mr. Tazi’s Arbitration demand.) Before initiating arbitration, Mr. Aziz on February 5 25, 2020, sent a letter to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), advising 6 Defendant of his intent to seek civil penalties under PAGA.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

WALTERS V. MONDELEZ GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiff shall file a supplemental declaration by 4:00 p.m. on September 22 that 19 provides information regarding the existence and terms of any individual settlement entered into 20 by Plaintiff in this case. 28 In the memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs state the attorneys’ fees are $166,666.66. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p. 2:9.) The Court will treat $166,666.67 as the correct amount based on the language of the settlement agreement. 1 10.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

UNITED LIQUID GAS COMPANY V. KENNETH FOSTER

Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration from Long, General Manager and custodian of records for Plaintiff’s accounting records, including records of payment and accounting records relating to PVI and Foster, supported by Exhibits E through I. Plaintiff further provided the supplemental declaration of its counsel, Anielski.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

SIMEON THOMPSON VS FELTON BUCKHOLTZ, ET AL.

On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff a supplemental declaration. The Motion initially came for hearing on July 15, 2020, at which time the Court granted the Motion in part and continued the hearing with respect to the request to compel Defendant Anthony Hames’ responses to Form Interrogatories and Felton Buckholtz’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Demand for Inspection. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file three additional filing fees with respect to these requests. The filing fees were paid on July 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHAHNAZ KARDOUH VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

If the parties do not resolve this motion by stipulation prior to the continued hearing, Plaintiff’s Counsel is ordered to electronically file and serve a supplemental declaration no later than September 21, 2020, setting forth Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer with Defendant in good faith. If Plaintiff fails to file such supplemental declaration by September 21, 2020, this motion will be denied without prejudice. Court Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

UNITED LIQUID GAS COMPANY V. KENNETH FOSTER

Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration from Long, General Manager and custodian of records for Plaintiff’s accounting records, including records of payment and accounting records relating to PVI and Foster, supported by Exhibits E through I. It further provided the supplemental declaration of its counsel, Anielski. Defendants filed a supplemental brief opposing the writs, as well as evidentiary objections to Long and Anielski’s declarations.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

IN RE THE SYLVIA JUNE ASAVIS TRUST DATED MAY 22, 2015

The Court is in receipt of further briefing, including Petitioners’ supplemental brief (filed August 12), Respondents’ supplemental brief in opposition (filed August 24), and Respondents’ supplemental declaration from John Dougherty (filed September 3). The Court is also in receipt of Respondents’ “Objections to argument in supplemental reply brief and response to new authority presented in supplemental reply brief,” filed September 9.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

GARDEN WEST ESTATES VS EUGENE A PETRON

Thus, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration and documentary evidence providing this information. Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Garden West Estates’ Petition to Declare Mobilehome Abandoned is CONTINUED TO NOV 4, 2020 AT 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF WOUTERA TERA NATZLER

The Court has reviewed the supplemental Declaration of Ms. Houghton in support of Fees and Costs, which is substantially compliant with the requirements of CRC 7.751(b) and CRC 7.702. The Court intends to approve attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $5,823.50 through 8/25/20. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

TY EDWIN HUDSON VS GREG KHOUNGANIAN, ET AL.

Rashbaum corrected any error in his supplemental declaration. (Supplemental Declaration of Ralph F. Rashbaum, ¶ 2.) Defendant objects because Dr. Rashbaum’s declaration does not state that “Greg S. Khounganian, M.D.’s medical care and treatment of plaintiff failed to meet the standard of care.” Although Dr. Rashbaum did not use this boilerplate, legal terminology, the content of the declaration states, in fact, that Dr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  « 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.