What is a Supplemental Declaration?

Useful Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

Rulings on Supplemental Declaration

1-25 of 3476 results

GLEN AIR MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS MIGUEL ALDERETTE

In the September 13 Minute Order, the Court ordered Petitioner to serve the Supplemental Declaration on Respondent. The Proof of Service attached to the Supplemental Declaration does not show that the Supplemental Declaration was served on Respondent—rather, it shows that a “Petition to Declare Mobile Home Park Abandoned” was served, which is not the correct document. A proof of service must set forth “the exact title of the document served and filed in the cause.” (CCP § 1013a(1).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANSLEY WELLER VS MATT MAGANA

The court had continued the hearing from July 11, 2018 to August 1, 2018 to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to file a supplemental declaration. At the hearing on August 1, the court continued the hearing to the herein date to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to file a supplemental declaration in compliance with CCP §2015.5 by August 24, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GLEN AIR MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC VS MIGUEL ALDERETTE

The court’s ruling, however, did not find that proper notice had been provided with respect to the Supplemental Declaration. Rather, the court’s ruling as set forth in its minute order is: “[S]ervice of the Supplemental Declaration was improper, and Respondent was not afforded proper notice and an opportunity to respond to the Supplemental Declaration. The Court, therefore, cannot consider the Supplemental Declaration at this time.” (Minute Order, dated 10/30/18.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY VS GIBBONS CU-EN-CJC

MP’s supplemental declaration now claims increased amounts for these items: $64 per month on the Citibank Sears card and $351 per month to “LoanMe.” MP’s supplemental declaration also now claims additional installment payments: (1) a monthly $325 payment to “Synchrony Bank,” and $110 per month for cell phone.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2017

BLUESKY WEALTH ADVISORS VS RIC

As a result, Bluesky may file and serve a supplemental declaration of David Blain that complies with CCP § 2015.5 on or before April 12, 2017. The supplemental declaration may cure the § 2015.5 deficiency, but may not add any additional facts, statements, or evidence. The supplemental declaration should not re-attach the exhibits to the original Blain Declaration. The Court will treat that material as though it is attached to any supplemental declaration that is filed.

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

30-2014-00756943-CU-OE-CXC

(c) The 6/15/17 supplemental declaration confirms that 16 installments of $57,500.00 paid quarterly, are to fund the subject settlement. However, the proposed distribution plan attached to the 6/15/17 supplemental declaration does not match the distribution plan set forth on page 4 of the revised Notice of Class Action Settlement and Settlement Hearing attached to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2017

IN RE THE ESTATE OF IDA LEE TALTON, DECEASED

There is no proof of service on file for the Supplemental Declaration of Deborah Young in Response to Tentative Ruling on Petition for Final Distribution, 2nd Supplemental Declaration of Deborah Young in Response to Tentative Ruling for Final Distribution and 3rd Supplemental Declaration of Deborah Young in Response to DMS Tentative Ruling on Petition for Final Distribution filed on September 16, 2019. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 7.53.) 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

1. MORALES V. GREENLEAF 3 PACIFIC PLAZA, LLC

The 10/19/16 supplemental declaration of plaintiff attorney Mr. Hawkins reinforces the above observations. The 10/19/16 supplemental declaration of Administrator Simpluris, Inc.’s Case Manager Mr. Gomez, explains that 88 Claim Forms have now been received (more than the 80 previously reported), and confirms that 3 opt-outs and no objections have been presented, and attaches a copy of the Administrator’s bid and invoice for service documents.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2016

RIC1512432

The Court requires a supplemental declaration providing a copy of the Summary Notice in the Spanish-language newspaper, La Opinion, and the date the notice was published. 2. The Court requires a supplemental declaration of counsel providing authenticated copies of billing statements in compliance with Section G.4 of the Amendment to CMO entered on March 6, 2017. The Court declines the plaintiff’s suggestion that these documents be lodged and reviewed in camera rather than filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2017

DOLORES BATTEN ET AL VS MARICARMEN HERRERA

The court had continued the hearing on the herein motion to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to file a supplemental declaration to clarify discrepancies in his declaration supporting the motion. On July 12, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel David J. Shapiro filed a “Supplemental Declaration” but it does not comply with CCP §2015.5. Thus, the court cannot consider this document.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

IN RE THE ESTATE OF SOLOMAN LORENZO JONES, DECEASED

This would allow the petitioner to marshal any assets as indicated in the Supplemental Declaration. (Prob. Code §§ 8481; 8483.) DMS

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

PROOF OF SERVICE: · CONTINUE hearing on application for admission pro hac vice for submission of supplemental declaration. ANALYSIS Application To Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney: Geoffrey S. Harper The hearing on the application to appear pro hac vice is CONTINUED to May 31, 2019 for submission of a supplemental declaration which addresses the above-identified deficiencies. Supplemental declaration is due by May 24, 2019.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

IN RE THE ESTATE OF JAMES EDGAR VANASSEE, DECEASED

There is no proof of service filed for the Supplemental Declaration filed September 18, 2019. If the court is provided satisfactory proof that those persons entitled to notice were provided the Supplemental Declaration as required by law, the court intends to rule as follows: The court finds all notices have been given as required by law. The petition as corrected by the Supplemental Declaration filed September 18, 2019 is granted as prayed. DMS

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

MACOR INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO A MUNICIPAL ET AL

CROSS-COMPLAINANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, STATE LANDS COMMISSION AN AGENCY OF THE STATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (Joint) Motion To Strike 1) All PLAINTIFF'S Reply Pleadings; 2) Amended Notice; 3) Amended Separate Statement; 4) Supplemental Declaration Of Steve Walker; 5) Second Supplemental Declaration Of Anastasia Telesetsky And 6) Second Supplemental Exhibits IS CONTINUED ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION TO FEBRUARY 19, 2008. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2008

HOUSE OF BAIL BONDS INC. VS ANNETTE ELIZABETH HOGAN, ET AL.

The Court’s minute order from August 13, 2020 plainly stated that Plaintiff was to file a supplemental declaration “addressing the failure to appear at the hearing that was scheduled for January 22, 2020.” (Minute Order, 8/13/20 (emphasis added).) The Court’s instruction could not have been more clear. Yet Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration fails to address the January 22, 2020 hearing in any way. (Motion, Supp. Wells Decl.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REYES VS PSLQ INC

A supplemental declaration of Garay was filed timely, and a supplemental declaration of Amaya was filed late, but there is no compliance with the remaining portions of the Court’s order. Still missing are a revised order and an amended or supplemental declaration from the administrator.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

EDWARD GONZALEZ ET AL VS SHOOSHANI DEVELOPERS LLC ET AL

As such, the hearing on the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is CONTINUED to April 28, 2017 for submission of a supplemental declaration which addressed the deficiencies identified above. Supplemental declaration is due 14 days prior to the continued hearing date. Any supplemental opposition may be filed and served 7 days prior to hearing, limited to addressing any new issues raised by said supplemental declaration. Moving Party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 30, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

VALLE DE NIETO VS BRISTOL INDUSTRIES LLC

The Supplemental Declaration of Nathalie Hernandez regarding objections and exclusions was filed on December 13, 2019. The deadline for objections and exclusions was December 9, 2013. Given the short time between the deadline and the supplemental declaration, it is possible that objections or additional exclusions arrived after the declaration was submitted. The administrator should submit a supplemental declaration either identifying additional exclusions/objections or confirming there are none.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

HAUGEN VS BIG LEAGUE DREAMS CATHEDRAL CITY

The following corrections are required: Section E.21 re location of settlement agreement Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a supplemental declaration with both the original Settlement Agreement and the Addendum to Settlement Agreement attached and that supplemental declaration shall be referenced in the Notice as the location of the Settlement Agreement and the Addendum to Settlement Agreement. The supplemental declaration is necessary for two reasons.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

HANA SMALL BUSINESS LENDING INC VS NAM JOE KIM

Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration provides that $202,450.69 was recovered from the foreclosure short sale. Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration also provides an interest calculation. However, the numbers do not establish how the principal balance resulted in $47,775.40. The complaint alleges Plaintiff and Defendant entered the loan agreement for $300,000 on January 10, 2013. The complaint alleges that Defendant agreed to pay 6% interest.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

WAYNE PROVISION CO INC VS DIVERSIFIED COATINGS & LININGS CO

Therefore, Defense Counsel must file and serve a supplemental declaration stating generally the grounds for each motion to withdraw, for example, “irreconcilable differences,” without referencing attorney-client privileged communications. If Defense Counsel submits such a supplemental declaration at or before the November 9, 2016 hearing, together with proof of service for the supplemental declaration, the Court would be inclined to proceed on the merits of the motion to withdraw.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2016

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHAPMAN, COURTNEY VS MARTIN, JOHANNA

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Counsel must file and serve a supplemental declaration stating generally the grounds for the motion to withdraw, for example, “irreconcilable differences,” without referencing attorney-client privileged communications. If Plaintiff’s Counsel submits such a supplemental declaration at or before the June 19, 2017 hearing, together with proof of service for the supplemental declaration, the court would be inclined to proceed to the merits of the motion to withdraw.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PLEASANTON READY MIX VS. KUMAR

This issue, however, may be remedied in a supplemental declaration. Defendant’s declaration also fails to explain when he learned about this lawsuit. However, in his memorandum the Defendant states that he did not learn about this lawsuit until February 10, 2019. Information about when and how the Defendant learned of this lawsuit needs to be included in a declaration. This issue too, may be remedied in a supplemental declaration.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

IN RE FARRIS

Counsel appeared at the hearing and requested a continuance, and the matter was placed on the review calendar to monitor for filing of a supplemental declaration addressing the requirements of the Insurance Code. The supplemental declaration has now been filed and reviewed by the Court. Based on the Petition and supporting documents, the Court intends to GRANT the Petition. A proposed order has been submitted and will be executed by the Court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2018

POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC. ET AL VS. DEAN LUCA KRAUSE ET AL

Notice Motion Motion To Seal Supplemental Declaration Matter on calendar for Wednesday, April 26, 2017, Line 14, PLAINTIFF POLYMATHIC PROPERTIES, INC., MEYER CORPORATION, U.S. Motion To Seal Supplemental Declaration. Plaintiffs Polymathic Properties, Inc. and Meyer Corporation, U.S.'s motion to file under seal the supplemental declaration of Stanley K. Cheng and plaintiffs' responses to defendant Krause's objections to evidence is granted. No opposition filed and good cause shown per CRC 2.550(d).

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

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.