Y.H. v Glendale USD
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Item: 1
Case: BC562719
Date: 10/6/17
MP: Plaintiff, Y. H.
RP: Defendant, Glendale Unified School District
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order imposing monetary sanctions under CCP section 128.5 on the Defendant.
DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that she was sexually assaulted by another student at a school managed by the Defendant, Glendale Unified School District. The Defendant then filed a Cross-Complainant against the parents of the student who is alleged to have sexually assaulted the Plaintiff.
Trial is set for October 10, 2017.
This hearing concerns the Plaintiff’s motion for an order imposing monetary sanctions on the Defendant because the Defendant had filed a successive motion for a judgment on the pleadings without complying with the requirements in CCP section 1008(b) for filing a motion to renew a previously denied motion.
An initial issue is that the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s motion is untimely un
Hearing Date
October 06, 2017
Type
Other PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Y.H. v Glendale USD
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Item: 1
Case: BC562719
Date: 10/6/17
MP: Plaintiff, Y. H.
RP: Defendant, Glendale Unified School District
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order imposing monetary sanctions under CCP section 128.5 on the Defendant.
DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that she was sexually assaulted by another student at a school managed by the Defendant, Glendale Unified School District. The Defendant then filed a Cross-Complainant against the parents of the student who is alleged to have sexually assaulted the Plaintiff.
Trial is set for October 10, 2017.
This hearing concerns the Plaintiff’s motion for an order imposing monetary sanctions on the Defendant because the Defendant had filed a successive motion for a judgment on the pleadings without complying with the requirements in CCP section 1008(b) for filing a motion to renew a previously denied motion.
An initial issue is that the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s motion is untimely un