What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

201-225 of 3489 results

SAADEDDINE A EL-GHALI VS MATTHEW BARCH, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the declarations of Soon Barch, Matthew Barch and the supplemental declaration of Leighton M. Anderson are overruled. This action arises out of dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the scope of an easement Plaintiff claims over the residential property of Defendants. On 5/3/19, Plaintiff filed his complaint for nuisance, permanent injunction and declaratory relief. On 5/10/19, Plaintiff recorded a notice of pendency of action (lis pendens).

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SANDRA BERNAL VS ARCONIC VALLEY ET AL

The court permitted Defendant to file a supplemental Declaration in response. The court also requested information from Plaintiff on what discovery is still needed. Plaintiff requests discovery be reopened until September 20, 2020 to coincide with the new trial date of October 20, 2020, and has provided possible dates for parties and witnesses. (Supp’l Hull Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

In addition, Goldstein declared he drafted the motion for fees and costs, spending 13.1 hours preparing the motion, and billed the time identified on the invoices attached as Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Colwell. (Decl. of Goldstein ¶4.) Defendant also submitted a summary of the time entries extracted from the client invoices for both the Anti-SLAPP Motions and Motion for Fees and Costs. (Supp-Decl. of Colwell ¶4, Exh. C.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

Objections to the Supplemental Declaration of Nefertiti Long (ROA 334): OVERRULED in their entirety. B. Cardenas’s Objections Objections to the Declaration of Patricia Pham (ROA 259): The Court rules as follows. The request to disregard the Pham Declaration in its entirety is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

CARLOS CHAVEZ VS SECURITY AMERICA INC

On April 30, 2020 the court issued a ruling, which addressed: (1) the declaration and other evidence before the court; (2) liability of the individual defendant Mary Garnica, (3) documents in support of default, and (4) the ability to cure by supplemental declaration. On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed three declarations in support of judgment. On July 22, 2020, at the OSC Re: Dismissal, Plaintiff represented that all default documents had been submitted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SARA HUANG, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JEFFREY HUANG, ET AL. VS LAX-C INC, A CORPORATION

The Court has considered the Supplemental Declaration of Erika Contreras in support of the fee request. The Court finds that on the current record, and in consideration of the factors set forth in Cal Rules of Court, Rule 7.955(b), a fee of 33 1/3% of the Claimant’s gross settlement is reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FRANCIS HUNG VS. PAOSHENG CHEN

Accordingly, the Court will continue the instant motion and permit Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a supplemental declaration of process server Ru-Ming Lee to state the facts upon which is based the statement in the proof of service: "appeared to be in charge of the office.". --- RULING: In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRIMO INVESTMENTS LLC, ET AL VS. HECTOR COSIO KRAUSS, ET AL

Defendants Objection to Supplemental Declaration of Mary-May Nery and Bahay Properties Inc. in Support of Motion to Compel is OVERRULED. LEGAL STANDARD Procedural Requirements for Motion to Comoel Further Responses The propounding party must serve the motion to compel further responses within 45 days of the service of the unsatisfactory responses; otherwise, the moving party waives the right to compel any further response to the demand.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

JUDITH A. AVILA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

In a supplemental declaration, plaintiff contends that the type of foul odor, sometimes described as a burning smell, is a common symptom of the 2017 Nissan Pathfinder, as well as other Nissan vehicles with CVT transmissions. Plaintiff contends that the foul or burning odor may be linked to leaks of coolant or transmission fluid.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

NOVIN DEVELOPMENT VS. BROOKFIELD

Through a supplemental declaration of Iman Novin, Novin Corp offers additional documents which it contends support this position along with evidence previously submitted with its opposition. Novin Corp relies heavily on the fact that Brookfield RP Inc. consolidated financials and a 2017 annual report were used to provide the "lead developer" financial support for the October RFQ and contends that Messrs.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

LENIN LOPEZ VS ROSA URBINA, ET AL.

On February 6, 2020, the Court continued the hearing and ordered Defendant Urbina to file a proof of service demonstrating Plaintiff was served with the Demurrer as well as a supplemental declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement. (2/6/20 Minute Order.) The Court cautioned that failure to comply with the order could result in the Demurrer being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INSURANCE EXCHANGE VS LOUANI TONGATUA, ET AL.

Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a supplemental declaration explaining the reason the parties signed two stipulations, explaining the reason only one stipulation was filed with the Court, and identifying the operative stipulation. Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and Enter Judgment is CONTINUED TO NOV. 2, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

RODRIGUEZ DIAZ VS. CORALES RESTAURANTS, INC.

The Court notes that the amendment referred to in counsel's supplemental declaration has not been filed with the Court as a fully executed document. In addition, at the hearing counsel should be prepared to address why this should be a “claims made” settlement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

MARIA C MARQUINA VS COUNTRY VILLA SERVICE CORP ET AL

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the following: (1) a Supplemental Brief (“Fee-Brief”); (2) a Supplemental Declaration of Jordan D. Bello (“Fee-Decl. of Bello”); (3) a Supplemental Declaration of Michael Nourmand (“Fee-Decl. of Nourmand”); and (4) a Declaration of Sahag Majarian (“Fee-Decl. of Majarian”) to address the issues raised in the Court’s ruling.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JORDAN VS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 312 as modified (Oct. 9, 2002) (“Assignee contends the trial court erred when it considered the supplemental declaration which landlord submitted with its reply papers. We agree.”) Therefore, the Motion for Leave to Amend to file a Third Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice for the failure to comply with the Rules of Court as indicated above.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

IVO NKWENJI, ET AL VS. ROUNDTREE 1 VAN NUYS, LLLC

The decision whether to submit a supplemental declaration will be Mr. Nshlai’s as the court is granting him leave to do so. IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

EMORY PARK INC VS 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC

In sum, the moving, non-opposition, reply and supplemental declaration papers pertaining to this issue demonstrate a failure to communicate on both sides. Despite proofs of service being filed in this matter, both sides contend that hundreds of pages of discovery and multiple emails have vanished into thin air.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANK MCHUGH VS ADAM GREENFIELD, ET AL.

· Exhibit 12: McHugh’s Reply in support of Motion to Enter Judgment Against Plaintiff Pursuant to CCP § 664.6, including the Supplemental Declaration of Frank McHugh, filed on September 27, 2018 in the action entitled Adam Greenfield v. Frank McHugh, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC515684. · Exhibit 13: The October 1, 2018 (Supplemental) Declaration of Adam Greenfield in support of his Opposition to the Request for Judgment Under § 664.6 in the action entitled Adam Greenfield v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KEITH GARL V. ROBERT NICHOLSON, BEN FERRARI, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that Troy Ellison was in attendance at this meeting; however, in his own supplemental declaration, Mr. Ellison disputes that he was in attendance. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Ellison referenced charging Plaintiff a “connection fee.” As Mr. Ellison disputes that he was at this meeting held on some unknown date, Mr. Ellison also disputes that he made this statement. Plaintiff does not allege he is actually being charged a connection fee.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

HIGH INTEGRITY RACK AND SHELVING, LLC VS TAOMORE SUPPLY CHAIN LTD

On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration. To date, Defendant has not filed an opposition. II. Legal Standard A motion to strike may be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435 and 436, which authorize a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

DAN OLINCY ET AL VS JACK VICTOR RUTBERG ET AL

Coleman, filed June 25, 2020, and the Supplemental Declaration of Derrick F. Coleman, filed July 17, 2020. The proposed Third Amended Complaint is attached to the supplemental declaration, filed July 17, 2020, as Exhibit F. Coleman is Plaintiffs’ counsel.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DELORIS FARMER VS SCANDINAVIAN COACHCRAFT LLC ET AL

(Supplemental Declaration of Jeffrey W. Erdman (“Erdman Supp. Decl.”) ¶ 4.) The Court will next calculate whether the settlement amount was not “out of the ball park.” Because this action is still in its pleading stage, the Court will assume, strictly for the sake of this exercise, that Defendants evenly share the liability evenly at 50 percent (%) each.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION VS ANTHONY GONSALVES, AN INDIVIDUAL

The court continued the hearing so that Plaintiff could file a supplemental declaration as to the authority of Plaintiff to proceed under the name Ally Bank. On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration of Amanda Erickson. The declaration was served on Defendant on August 10, 2020. No response to the supplemental declaration from Defendant has been received.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

ADAM ASHBY, ET AL. VS HENRY NIVICHANOV, ET AL.

Moving party’s counsel is to file and serve a supplemental declaration by no later than September 8, 2020 confirming that this order was complied with, and the results only of such meet and confer.[1] Moving party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 25, 2020 ___________________________________ Randolph M. Hammock Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

FIRST MOTOR GROUP OF ENCINO ET AL VS ENCINO MOTORCARS INC.

Declaration of Franjo M.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • 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.