What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Recent Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

JOSE ARDON VS KARINA ROJO, ET AL.

In a supplemental declaration of Teonie Cushinberry, Defendants’ employee, Cushinberry provides there were three service calls for the system made after the upgrade was initiated: (1) on 3/17/20, the power supply for the system was swapped, (2) on 4/8/20, the monitor and the hard drive for the system were swapped, and (3) 6/17/20, two new cameras were installed. Cushinberry then provides she was unable to confirm which of these service calls was responsible for the lost footage.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL.

More specifically, SinCo seeks an order sealing portions of SinCo’s 11 supplemental brief and the supplemental declaration of Lael D. Andara, in addition to certain 12 exhibits to the supplemental declaration. 13 In support of the motion to seal, SinCo provides a declaration stating that the portions of 14 the documents SinCo seeks to have sealed include company names, projects specific to those 15 companies, and contacts with U.S. customers. (Declaration of Daniel E.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

Webcor states that an expert’s speculations do not rise to the status of 23 contradictory evidence, and a court is not bound by expert opinion that is speculative or 24 conjectural. 25 Webcor submits the Supplemental Declaration of Dennis Govan in Support of 26 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication (“Govan Decl.”) to support its argument. Govan 27 is an architect licensed in California and the principal with Govan Associates, an architectural 28 firm in Walnut Creek. (Govan Decl., ¶ 1.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

EJAZ JILANI VS ZAHIR AHMAD, ET AL.

The motion was CONTINUED to allow plaintiff’s counsel to file a supplemental declaration as to whether he confirmed the client’s address within the past 30 days, and if not, what efforts he made to obtain the client’s current address, such as internet searches, private investigator, and/or physically going to the client’s address. On September 11, 2020, plaintiff’s counsel filed a “supplemental declaration,” but it contained no information. Moving counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT V. REGINALD E. DREW, JR., ET AL.

The Reply is supported by the supplemental declaration of Matthew Griffin: he testifies, in part, that County Flood is scheduled to commence construction on April 1, 2021, as stated in his October 8, 2020, declaration, and not the contrary date stated in defendants’ supplemental opposition; this start date allows critical preparatory work outside the creek channel to proceed before entering it on or about June 1, and includes the time needed to undertake the public bidding process to award a construction contract

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

BROADCAST MUSIC INC. VS CAFE MAFE INC.

On July 15, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration in support of its Petition and Respondent filed a second Response on August 12, 2020. At the August 19, 2020 continued hearing, Respondent’s request to vacate the Arbitration Award was denied. (8/19/20 Minute Order.) The Court also found that Petitioner still had not submitted a proof of service demonstrating the neutral arbitrator served a copy of the Arbitration Award on the parties. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

NAHID REZAEIYAN VS BOITE, LLC, ET AL.

Also, any prejudice to Defendants has been cured by the continuance and opportunity to submit a supplemental declaration. Defendants contend that the individual Defendants’ financial statements “do not relate to Boite.” (Suppl. Br. 3.) However, in their supplemental brief, Defendants did not dispute that the restaurant referred to in the financial statement is Ostrich Farm LA, operated by Boite, LLC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

FRANCISCO RAMOS VS LUIS R FIGUEROA ET AL

(Supplemental Declaration of Gilbert A. Garcia, Exh. #9, p. 88.) This testimony is insufficient foundation to establish that the hose he took from Defendants’ yard was the same hose he used during the accident. This foundational problem is fatal because Defendant’s expert, George Rolla, bases his opinion on the assumption that the hose he examined was, in fact, the same hose Plaintiff used during the accident.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

SHAGHAL LTD. VS TRACY NGUYEN

That same day, Judgment Creditor filed a supplemental declaration. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

RANCH AT THE FALLS LLC VS KEITH O'NEAL ET AL

The supplemental declaration of attorney Tara Radley indicates that since the filing of the motion, Cross-Complainant Indian Springs has incurred additional fees through 9/30/20 which total $14,835.00. RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE THE ESTATE OF ALLEN JAMES ROBERSON, DECEASED

The court has reviewed the Supplemental Declaration filed October 14, 2020 which resolved the outstanding issue from the previous hearing. The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The petition as corrected by the Supplemental Declaration is granted as prayed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

ADAM ALCANTARA VS RUDE DOG BAR & GRILL, INC., ET AL.

Timeliness The court determines that the demurrer was timely filed, as per ¶2, Exhibit 1 of the Supplemental Declaration of Eddie Dennis. Request for Judicial Notice The court grants Rude Dog’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”). Merits Rude Dog contends that it is immune from liability as an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages when Plaintiff’s injuries were inflicted by a third party resulting from consumption of such alcoholic beverages.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CERVANTES VS CERVANTES HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY GREGORY CERVANTES

Defendant filed a supplemental declaration of Attorney Burch that states: • In response to my inquiry concerning the underlying 2013/2014 boundary dispute between the Cervantes and Sunwood Prado LLC and where the settled boundary line was to sit in relation to the Feiro Engineering TMP, on October 13, 2020 after I filed my Opposition and supporting Declaration, I received an E-mail from Dana Khun formerly of Sunwood Venture Sunwood Prado, LLC., setting forth his personal description of the facts involved in

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

IN RE: NAVA

This Court previously continued the hearing and ordered the applicant to “file a supplemental declaration at least 10 days prior thereto addressing the various concerns set forth herein.” See Minute Order 09/11/20. Nothing has been filed as ordered. Thus, it appears applicant is no longer interested in pursuing this transfer. Petition Denied, without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

DEW INVESTMENTS, LLC VS RANDY TAYLOR, ET AL.

The Supplemental Declaration also seeks attorney’s fees of $225 for .5 hours to draft the supplemental declaration, $900 for 2 hours to draft a reply to any opposition, and 2 hours to appear at the hearing, for an additional $900. The court will award the fees to draft the Supplemental Declaration and to appear at the hearing but will not award the $900 in fees to draft a reply in light of the failure of defendants to file timely opposition.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

NATALIE RUBIO , ET AL. VS GENIE INDUSTRIES, INC. , ET AL.

Because of the request for a 40 percent attorneys’ fees recovery, the Court ordered the submission of a supplemental declaration to permit the requisite analysis of whether the fees sought are reasonable under Rule 7.955 of the California Rules of Court. The supplemental declaration provided provides an ample record for the Court’s determination under Rule 7.955.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

TOVAR VS NIR WEST COAST

A hearing was held on December 12, after which the Court directed that (1) financial information concerning defendant be provided to the Court for in camera review; and (2) plaintiff’s counsel file a supplemental declaration addressing certain issues identified by the Court. Counsel provided the required information, and the Court granted the motion on December 12, 2019. Background: The original complaint was filed August 25, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

OTERO VS. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.

Defendant further presents evidence that it served a Notice of Continuance of Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Production of Things scheduling the deposition for July 30, 2020; that based on Plaintiff’s conduct to date, Defendant anticipated Plaintiff would fail to appear for the July 30 deposition; that Defendant filed this Motion to reserve a hearing date to avoid further prejudice to it; and that Defendant would file a supplemental declaration prior to the hearing as to whether Plaintiff appeared at

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

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

MARITZA LUCERO ERNST VS EFRAIN DEL REAL

Continued Hearing The Court, in its 9/22/20 ruling, ordered Ernst to file a supplemental declaration and supporting information on or before 10/08/20. To date, Ernst has not filed any supplemental papers. The Court therefore affirms its original order denying Ernst’s application for waiver of the bond requirement. The Court notes that the Labor Commissioner urges the Court to set an OSC re: dismissal for ten days after today’s hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

FORTRESS SF1, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS 274 BRANNAN STREET OWNER, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The court has read and considered moving party's supplemental declaration. The parties have not filed a joint statement of remaining issues. The motions will go forward; the court will hear argument and issue orders following the hearing. Proposed orders have been submitted.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SHIRLEY LEW, ET AL. VS TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER MORTGAGE CORP.

., the day before the motion was scheduled for hearing), Friedman filed a supplemental declaration, stating that “[t]he entry of default was due to [his] mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Friedman Supp. Decl., ¶4.) Defendant has essentially attempted, post-filing, to convert the motion from one based on discretionary relief to mandatory relief. The court declines to consider any belated argument raised as to attorney affidavit of fault. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROCIO DEVORA VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

On October 14, 2020, Defendant’s Counsel filed her Supplemental Declaration Regarding Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Meet and Confer Efforts Pursuant to the August 20, 2020 Court Order, in Support of the Motion for Protective Order re: Site Inspection. The Court has reviewed Counsel’s Declaration and is not persuaded that counsel have exhausted their meet and confer obligations pursuant to the Code.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDITH ANNE PETRUCCI ET AL VS 7 ELEVEN DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

On October 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration stating that they withdraw the portion of their Motion to Quash that concerns the subpoena to West Gastroenterology Medical Group. Legal Standard Where the witness whose deposition is sought is not a party, a subpoena must be served to compel his or her attendance, testimony, or production of documents. (CCP § 2020.010(b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PETITION OF JG WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS LLC

Yescas may submit a supplemental declaration addressing this inquiry if he wishes to do so.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.