Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

1-25 of 437 results

LUIS TISNADO VS HYTROL CONVEYOR COMPANY INC ET AL

The Court finds Fletchline failed to meet its burden, on summary judgment, to show that an “installer” and a “manufacturer” are separate and distinct, and that an “installer” cannot be held liable on a negligent products liability theory. c.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2017

SUZANA AREZINA VS WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC ET AL

This fact is insufficient to show Moving Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. (See Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 530-532 (finding an expert’s conclusory declaration to be without evidentiary value).) As such, Moving Defendant has not met its burden in showing it is entitled to summary judgment against Plaintiff’s products liability cause of action. Failure to Warn A manufacturer is liable for products liability based on a failure to warn of known or knowable harm from a product.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

ROSARIO ROMERO VS DISNEY FACILITIES SERVICE AND SUPPORT ET A

CAUSES OF ACTION IN COMPLAINT: 1) Negligence 2) Products Liability - Strict Liability 3) Products Liability - Negligence RELIEF REQUESTED: Summary Judgment of the Complaint DISCUSSION: This hearing concerns the motion of Defendant, Otis Elevator Co. for summary judgment. Under CCP section 437c, the Defendant has the burden of offering facts that demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2017

MARIA DE JESUS LUNA VS. LANDINI USA

Defendant Argo Tractors S.p.A's Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication The court grants Defendant Argo Tractors S.p.A's Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's evidentiary objects are all sustained. Moving Defendant has met its burden under CCP 437c(o)(2) of showing that Plaintiffs cannot establish the elements of a cause of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability and/or negligence. (See Material Fact Nos. 1-24, which the court finds have been established.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MARONE VS. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY INC

True Fast moves for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication of the negligence and products liability causes of action. The Court notes that the products liability claim is not asserted against True Fast; therefore, the Court is unable to summarily adjudicate the products liability clam as to True Fast. True Fast has submitted admissible evidence establishing that it did not breach a duty owed to the plaintiffs. See Errera, Husher and Nelson Declarations.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARONE VS. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY INC

True Fast moves for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication of the negligence and products liability causes of action. The Court notes that the products liability claim is not asserted against True Fast; therefore, the Court is unable to summarily adjudicate the products liability clam as to True Fast. True Fast has submitted admissible evidence establishing that it did not breach a duty owed to the plaintiffs. See Errera, Husher and Nelson Declarations.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BHARTI DHALWALA VS QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED ET AL

Summary Adjudication Even though Hallmark has shown it is not an appropriate products liability defendant, Hallmark did not properly move for summary adjudication on the products liability cause of action because its separate statement does not comply with the Rule 3.1350 “If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication may make reference to and depend on the same evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

WENDY A NELSON ET AL VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOR

[Tentative] Order RE: motion for summary judgment, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION MOVING PARTY: Defendant Covidien, a Massachusetts Corporation RESONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Wendy A. Nelson and Steven Nelson Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication The court considered the moving papers and plaintiffs’ notice of non-opposition. Background This is a medical malpractice and products liability case. This action arises out of Wendy Nelson's ("Ms.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2017

JORGE ROMO VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA ET AL

Defendants HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERCIA and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY (collectively “Hyundai”) move for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication against the causes of action alleged against them— the first and second causes of action. As indicated by Hyundai in Reply, “although Plaintiff only pled two counts against [Hyundai] (strict products liability and negligent products liability), each of the above claims is actually a separate cause of action for summary adjudication purposes.”

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BENJAMIN CRUZ V. GREAT NORTHERN EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTING, INC., ET AL.

Additionally, and as relevant here, Cruz asserts a products liability claim against Northern Tool. Cruz’s third cause of action for products liability consists of three separately identified counts for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Northern Tool moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication on the ground Cruz’s products liability claim lacks merit. II. Standard of Review A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

LANICCA WILE ET AL VS THE KROGER CO

Plaintiffs’ operative SAC alleges causes of action for: 1) premises liability; 2) loss of consortium; 3) products liability; and 4) general negligence. On July 22, 2016, Mrs. Wile filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication of liability on her third cause of action. On July 26, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2016

LEBOW, ET AL. V. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., ET AL.

Defendant Intuitive moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication of the second cause of action for products liability and the dependent third cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2018

PAUL MARTIGNETTI VS PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC

Schindler is thus entitled to judgment on the products liability claim as well. In sum, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Schindler and against Plaintiff. KONE’S MOTION Defendant Kone, Inc. moves for summary judgment on similar grounds. Kone relies on a declaration of its retained elevator expert Davis L. Turner. Plaintiff has not objected to this declaration and thus the Court does not consider whether the declaration is subject to objection pursuant to People v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY VS. CERTIFIED STAINLESS SERVICE, INC.

Therefore, summary judgment is DENIED on the basis that Defendant has not demonstrated the absence of material factual disputes as to all issues presented. Based on the evidence provided, including the declaration of Darwin Elbers, the Court finds that no material disputes of fact exist with regard to Plaintiff’s cause of action for products liability based on the theories of breach of express and implied warranties, manufacturing defect, and design defect.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

LOUIS VELASCO VS THE VAPORS ET AL

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Strict Products Liability Negligent Products Liability Loss of Consortium A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

HILARIO CRUZ VS SOLOMON METHENGE

This is because even if Defendant were to prevail on its failure to warn argument, this would not defeat Plaintiffs’ strict products liability based on defective design or defective manufacturing. As noted above, Defendant must prevail as to all causes of action asserted against it in order to obtain summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MARK WOODSON VS PEDDINGHAUS CORPORATION ET AL

For the foregoing reasons, SBS’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Peddinghaus Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Both the first cause of action, for negligence, and the second cause of action, for products liability, are asserted against Peddinghaus, based on its conduct with respect to the coping machine it manufactured and installed. Second Cause of Action: Strict Products Liability “Strict liability is not absolute liability. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

ELAINE PERCY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, April 15, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 1. Defendant Frederick Meiswinkel, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is granted.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2014

BARRETT VS MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS GROUP

Where summary judgment is sought by a defendant, that defendant need only negate one element of the cause of action brought against it. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2). However, summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no facts in dispute as to that element. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(c). MERITS OF MOTION. First Cause of Action (Strict Products Liability).

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Motion is also granted as to the second cause of action for products liability because Plaintiff presents no evidence that PSP sold, designed, manufactured, or distributed the subject coper machine. In sum, PSP’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. S.G. Herrick’s MSJ/MSA S.G. Herrick moves for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication principally on the basis that all claims are barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rules because S.G. Herrick was Plaintiff’s employer.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2019

BARRETT VS MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS GROUP

Where summary judgment is sought by a defendant, that defendant need only negate one element of the cause of action brought against it. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2). However, summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no facts in dispute as to that element. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(c). MERITS OF MOTION. First Cause of Action (Strict Products Liability).

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BARRETT VS MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS GROUP

Where summary judgment is sought by a defendant, that defendant need only negate one element of the cause of action brought against it. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2). However, summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no facts in dispute as to that element. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(c). MERITS OF MOTION. First Cause of Action (Strict Products Liability).

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LON DAUGHERTY VS DOE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 100

Vortex claims that it will be prejudiced by the amendment because the statute of limitations has run on the products liability claim, and thus, Vortex will be forced to face a claim that is untimely. Again, Defendant may bring a demurrer or motion for summary judgment to challenge Plaintiff’s amended complaint on the basis of the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2018

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BARRETT VS MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS GROUP

Where summary judgment is sought by a defendant, that defendant need only negate one element of the cause of action brought against it. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2). However, summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no facts in dispute as to that element. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(c). MERITS OF MOTION. First Cause of Action (Strict Products Liability).

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALMIR MANSILLA VS HAAS AUTOMATION INC ET AL

Negligent Products Liability The doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply to claims for negligent products liability. (See Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 547, 562-565 (explaining why primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to claims for strict products liability); see also Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1300-1302 (applying the ruling in Milwaukee to products liability based on negligence).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.