Discover if Hon. Ottolia is the right judge for your case based on their ruling history. Stop making 170.6 decisions blindly. See a report sample
Download Hon. Ottolia ReportThe Hon. Daniel A. Ottolia is a judge for the Riverside County Superior Court in California. He was appointed to the bench by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010.
He is a registered Republican.
Judge Ottolia received his B.A. from the University of California, Irvine. He went on to earn his J.D. from Georgetown University.
Ottolia would serve briefly as a Riverside County deputy district attorney before becoming a named partner at Shafer, Hiskey, and Ottolia in 1985. After ten years with the firm, he hung out his own shingle in 1995, entering into solo practice, where he would remain until his appointment to the Superior Court in 2010.
While on the bench, Judge Ottolia became embroiled in a controversial decision involving the California End of Life Option. The legislation, which had been voted into state law in 2016, allowed for physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients who only had a few months to live. In May 2018, Judge Ottolia threw out the state law (after refusing to do so in 2016) on the grounds that lawmakers illegally enacted the law through a special session and was therefore unconstitutional at the time that it was approved. In June of that same year, the California Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal allowed the law to stay in effect while it considered the case.
ASOAU VS SUMMER INFANT (USA) INC
Aug 04, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant. Moving party to submit an Order. Hearing on Motion to be relieved of 8/6/20 is off calendar.
...RAMIREZ VS PROVIDER FOOD SERVICE LLC
Aug 04, 2020 | Riverside County
Motion is Denied as both procedurally and substantively defective. The Motion improperly combines several motions for different discovery devices into one motion. The motion does not clearly or consistently state which specific interrogatories or document requests are at issue. Motion does not comply with ...
Aug 03, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant. The failure to timely respond was based on the excusable neglect of counsel in failing to obtain an extension prior to the due date. The request for an extension came over the Thanksgiving holiday, counsel was not able to talk to Plaintiff’s counsel because he was unavailable, and she expected recip...
MCLAUGHLIN VS BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATION
Aug 03, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant. Matter is ordered Stayed. Case Management Hearing is continued to 2/11/21, 8:30 a.m., D-4
...Aug 03, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant.
...Jul 31, 2020 | Riverside County
Motion is Denied. No sanctions.
...Jul 31, 2020 | Riverside County
With respect to the Motions for Protective Orders regarding the two record subpoenas; All Objections are overruled. The first motion for protective order as to the 11/19/19 subpoena to Chase is Denied as moot ( subpoena was withdrawn) Plaintiff is awarded reduced sanctions of $1560. Motion is Granted as to...
Jul 31, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant. If Plaintiff has received the verifications and documents at issue, no sanctions will be awarded. If Plaintiff has not received the verifications and/or the documents, Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in the sum of $1560.
...Jul 31, 2020 | Riverside County
See No.3
...HOPKINS VS CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL
Jul 30, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant. These demands relate to communications from Medicare to Plaintiff, communications between Plaintiff and Medi-Cal, and all documents identified in Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 17.1. Plaintiff’s responses include information about communications between Plaintiff and Medicare/Medi-Cal, b...
Jul 30, 2020 | Riverside County
Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication is Denied as Moot. The court sustained the Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, with 30 days leave to amend, on February 19, 2020. There is no operative Third Amended Complaint currently on file, and therefor the court cannot consider the MSJ/A to the SAC. Defe...
BANNING UNIFIED VS INLAND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Jul 29, 2020 | Riverside County
See No. 4
...Jul 29, 2020 | Riverside County
Court deems Memorandum of Costs timely filed by granting Defendants the extension allowed under C.R.C. 3.1700(b)(3). Defendant’s MOC was filed only three days late, due to an error and oversight by counsel’s paralegal, and Plaintiff has not established any prejudice from the three-day delay. The Motion to ...
BANNING UNIFIED VS INLAND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Jul 29, 2020 | Riverside County
If verified responses have been served, this Motion is Denied.
...LOPEZ RAMIREZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA
Jul 29, 2020 | Riverside County
Moot.
...BANNING UNIFIED VS INLAND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Jul 29, 2020 | Riverside County
See No.4
...BANNING UNIFIED VS INLAND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Jul 29, 2020 | Riverside County
See No.4 Page 3 of 4
...SANCHEZ VS THE HILLS OF CORONA
Jul 29, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant. Dismissal of 3/17/20 is set aside. Matter is set for an OSC re: Sanctions and/or dismissal for failure to file the Default Judgment on October 22, 2020, 8:30 am, Dept-4.
...EDF RENEWABLE ENERGY INC VS MORONES
Jul 28, 2020 | Riverside County
Grant. Plaintiff awarded sanctions of $1060 against Defendant, payable within 30 days.
...Jul 28, 2020 | Riverside County
Motion is Denied. A motion compelling the production of documents at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement C.R.C 3.1345(a)(5). Plaintiff has not met the “good cause” requirement of C.C.P §2025.450(b)(1) with respect to the 18 document categories requested in the deposition notice. In add...
HOPKINS VS CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL
Jul 27, 2020 | Riverside County
A caretaking or custodial relationship is required to hold a defendant liable for elder abuse based on neglect. Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.17. A caretaking or custodial relationship is where an individual is responsible for attending to one or more of the basic needs of the elder; a need that an a...
BALDERRAMA VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Jul 23, 2020 | Riverside County
Petition is Granted. Petitioners’ application for late claim relief was filed within one year of the accrual of the cause of action, as required by Govt. Code § 911.4. Petitioners are entitled to relief under Govt. Code §§ 945.4 and 946.6. Petitioners have shown excusable neglect, and there is no prejudice...
BURNETT VS MCLANE FOODSERVICE INC
Jul 23, 2020 | Riverside County
Motion is Granted, in part and Denied, in part. Protective Order is Granted, relieving Defendant of its obligation to respond to Sets 4,5 and 6 of Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents and limiting Plaintiff’s further discovery to that which he attempted to timely serve before the prior fact disco...
WELLS FARGO BANK VS HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF OROSCO
Jul 23, 2020 | Riverside County
Motion is Granted. Request for Default and Default Judgment are set aside. Defendant to file its Answer within 20 days. Plaintiff is awarded reduced Sanctions of $900, payable within 30 days.
...
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
