What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

176-200 of 3489 results

BEAVAN VS. ALLERGAN, INC.

However, the Supplemental Declaration from Mr. Lynch concedes that “none of the 13 inventors listed on Ozurdex-related patents are current employees of Allergan USA, Inc. or, to [his] knowledge, any Allergan-related entity.” (¶7 of Lynch Declaration). Mr. Lynch states that “[n]o contact information is available for 11 inventors.” (Id.). As to the remaining two, Mr. Lynch indicates the current addresses have not been confirmed. (Id.). No addresses are thereafter provided.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

JULIE VERNER VS AMERICAN BUSINESS BANK, ET AL.

On August 10, 2020, ABB filed a supplemental declaration as to the anticipated hours spent on the instant motion for attorney fees. On August 21, 2020, Verner filed an opposition. On August 27, 2020, ABB filed a reply. Electronic Filing As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds the parties that “[e]lectronic documents must by electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Instead, on August 24, 2020, Defendants filed and served a supplemental declaration by mail regarding the reasonable expenses they incurred in this action. The service was only eight (8) court days prior to the new hearing date. Such grossly untimely service of the supplemental brief and declaration provided Plaintiff little time to respond to the additional briefing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TIMOTHY PAINTER VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

On July 23, 2020, VGA filed a Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Micaraset in support of its opposition. (“Supplemental Micaraset Decl.”) According to the Supplemental Micaraset Declaration VGA’s counsel Andrew Micaraset sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel on July 17, 2020 with the intent to further meet and confer. (Supp. Micaraset Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, Exhibit A-C.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Instead, on August 24, 2020, Defendants filed and served a supplemental declaration by mail regarding the reasonable expenses they incurred in this action. The service was only eight (8) court days prior to the new hearing date. Such grossly untimely service of the supplemental brief and declaration provided Plaintiff little time to respond to the additional briefing. Therefore, the Court finds it inappropriate to make a ruling on the amount of the security at this time.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LA JUANA POWERS VS ALLIED UNIVERSAL, ET AL.

However, defendant clarified in Grzywacz’s supplemental declaration that the reference was a typographical error, which it has corrected. (See Supp. Decl. Peggy Grzywacz ¶ 6.) Defendant’s supplemental declaration is sufficient to show that none of the relevant records were stored in Los Angeles at any time during plaintiff’s employment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

HASSAN HABIBI VS CAREMERIDIAN, LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

. ¶ 4.)The Court continues the hearing on this motion so that Defendants can submit a supplemental declaration from someone with the proper knowledge and foundation to provide sufficient facts to justify sealing the documents in this situation. Defendants are to serve and file this supplemental declaration five (5) court days before the scheduled hearing. To the extent that Defendants do not file a supplemental declaration as permitted, the Court is inclined to deny this motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILLIAM A RICHARDSON VS NOELLE (RICHARDSON) BROOKS, AN INDIVIDUAL AND IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE NOELLE RICHARDSON FAMILY TRUST, ET AL.

Plaintiff has filed a reply, with a supplemental declaration in support, and a separate statement filed for the first time. Defendant Madison filed an objection. On July 20, 2020, the court continued hearing on the motion to September 3, 2020, permitted Defendant to file a supplemental response within 20 days, and permitted Plaintiff to file a supplemental reply and/or objection. The court ruled it would consider the evidence in Plaintiff’s first and second declarations at the continued hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BRETT SMITH V. KENNEDY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

For these reasons, the Court will not require the parties to re-notice the Settlement Class, but does require that the “Important Update,” attached as Exhibit A to attorney Scott Lidman’s supplemental declaration be mailed out along with the individual settlement payments to advise the Settlement Class members of the correct class period.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

MINERVA PEREZ VS THE CITY OF PARAMOUNT, ET AL.

(Supplemental Declaration of Sarah Wilson, Exh. G, p.182:16-25.) The approaching vehicle then collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. (Ibid.) Plaintiff testified that she entered the intersection because she saw a green signal at the next intersection, the Howery intersection. (Id., p.183:18-25.) Plaintiff testified that she did not see any light at the subject intersection. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

RANCHO NUEVO HARVESTING, INC., ET AL V MELONCO, LLC

Plaintiff’s counsel on July 24, 2020, filed a supplemental declaration, indicating that it incorporated by reference all declarations filed with the first application and denied on July 14, 2020 (i.e. Julie Reynosa, Jessica Manriquez, and Lino Esparza).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

RANCHO MADRINA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CHURCH

As a preliminary matter, RMCA filed a reply which includes two new declarations, supplemental declaration of Jennifer Serentelos and a declaration of Sarah Kellykilgore. New evidence is not permitted with reply papers and was not considered by the court in ruling on this Motion. The burden is on Plaintiff to show all elements necessary to support issuance of the injunction. O’Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

YYK HOLDCO LLC VS PMR-SJ CORPORATION

The supplemental declaration (ROA 27) establishes that the court's concerns should not preclude pro hac vice status as Bookhout is not yet regularly practicing law in California. _____________________ *They are: This case, 2020-23035, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020. Case No. 2020-23069, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020, Dept. 70 (Judge Trapp) (dismissed without prejudice 7/10/20).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YYK HOLDCO LLC VS PMR-SJ CORPORATION

The supplemental declaration (ROA 27) establishes that the court's concerns should not preclude pro hac vice status as Bookhout is not yet regularly practicing law in California. _____________________ *They are: This case, 2020-23035, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020. Case No. 2020-23069, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020, Dept. 70 (Judge Trapp) (dismissed without prejudice 7/10/20).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YYK HOLDCO LLC VS PMR-SJ CORPORATION

The supplemental declaration (ROA 27) establishes that the court's concerns should not preclude pro hac vice status as Bookhout is not yet regularly practicing law in California. _____________________ *They are: This case, 2020-23035, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020. Case No. 2020-23069, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020, Dept. 70 (Judge Trapp) (dismissed without prejudice 7/10/20).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

YYK HOLDCO LLC VS PMR-SJ CORPORATION

The supplemental declaration (ROA 27) establishes that the court's concerns should not preclude pro hac vice status as Bookhout is not yet regularly practicing law in California. _____________________ *They are: This case, 2020-23035, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020. Case No. 2020-23069, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020, Dept. 70 (Judge Trapp) (dismissed without prejudice 7/10/20).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

INGATE SYSTEMS, INC. VS. UVNV, INC.

The Declaration and Supplemental Declaration of Karl Stahl states that the proposed SAC includes allegations of facts learned from Defendants’ discovery responses and document productions, including almost 30,000 pages of documents Defendants produced in this case on November 6, November 21 and December 6, 2018 and March 19, 2019. Decl. Stahl ¶ 2. In addition, in late October 2019 Defendants supplied a declaration from Jonathan Lin, former General Manager of Primo Connect, Inc and UVNV. Decl. Stahl ¶ 6.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

SHANNAN LYNETTE WYNN ET AL VS OPRAH G. WINFREY ET AL

Moreover, Plaintiff’s request for a continuance is moot given the Court already continued the hearing on the motion to provide Plaintiff the opportunity the file a supplemental opposition and supplemental declaration in support thereof. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s renewed request for a continuance is moot.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Court has reviewed the supplemental declaration of Mr. Roh filed on July 14, 2020 and finds that the supplemental declaration still does not provide the requisite facts of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect of Mr. Roh that actually caused the entries of default. Mr. Roh simply states that he now understands that Cross-Defendants mistakenly believed that Mr. Roh represented them. (Suppl. Decl., Roh, ¶ 2.) However, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

YYK HOLDCO LLC VS PMR-SJ CORPORATION

The supplemental declaration (ROA 27) establishes that the court's concerns should not preclude pro hac vice status as Bookhout is not yet regularly practicing law in California. _____________________ *They are: This case, 2020-23035, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020. Case No. 2020-23069, filed at 8:00 a.m. on July 6, 2020, Dept. 70 (Judge Trapp) (dismissed without prejudice 7/10/20).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VENEGAS, ET AL. V. GEICO INS. AGENCY, INC., ET AL.

(See Supplemental Declaration of Erika Venegas ¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48.) Further failure to comply with the Court’s directive may result in monetary, evidentiary or terminating sanctions. The parties are advised that when the court observes that monetary sanctions are insufficient to correct litigation abuses, it is appropriate to escalate to an effective sanction, including a terminating sanction. (Leavitt v. County of Madera (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1526.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

ARTURO LANDEROS VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Defendant is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration regarding the required meet and confer efforts on or before October 16, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

VIRGINA ASSET PARTNERS, LLC VS USM INVESTMENTS, INC.

The court, at that time, continued the hearing on the motion and instructed Ulloa to file a supplemental declaration attaching the entirety of the deposition subpoena forthwith.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF GARY BELL (SHERLY K. BELL)

Counsel and petitioner may appear via Zoom, in person, or by CourtCall and address the following: The Statement of Mental Incapacity (Exhibit D) attached to the First Supplemental Declaration filed August 17, 2020 is insufficient as it does not provide all of the information that would be provided in the Capacity Declaration (GC-335). There is no diagnosis provided or evaluation of the factors shown on the Capacity Declaration.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

VINCENT V WATSON VS DORIS L HILL ET AL

On August 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support this motion for leave to amend. On August 18, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition. Electronic Filing As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds the parties that “[e]lectronic documents must by electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, 5/3/19.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « 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.