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

76-100 of 437 results

DANIEL RAMIREZ VS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC ET AL

(citing Rest. 3d Torts, Products Liability, § 5(b).) In Ramos v.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

JAMES SILVA VS TJX COMPANIES INC ET AL

Claim for Products Liability Defendants argue that they cannot be liable for strict products liability because Plaintiff did not actually purchase the barstool. This argument is unpersuasive.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRANDON RIVERA VS HILLPOINTE CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

[Complaint ¶12] The causes of action in the complaint are 1) negligence (all defendants); 2) presumed negligence, Labor Code § 3706 (Hillpointe); 3) premises liability (all defendants); 4) strict products liability—design defect (Does 51-75); 5) strict products liability—manufacturing defect (Does 51-75); 6) strict products liability—failure to warn (Does 51-75); and 7) breach of implied warranty (Does 51-75) HBP and SBC’s Motion for Summary Judgment: HBP and SBC move for summary judgment on the grounds that

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

STATE VS PHILIPS

The Motion for Summary Judgment and Adjudication is DENIED. Summary Judgment: A factual contest that needs to be resolved by the trier of fact exists. Although it is not clear that Best Buys’ witness Barnes is an expert, even assuming so, Fiskar’s expert, Marks, has raised triable issues of fact. See Marks Depo, 50:16-51:14. S/A Products Liability: Best Buy has not submitted any evidence establishing that the power strip was not purchased at Best Buy at another time.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

EGNACIO E.R. BALINTON VS. BODYMASTERS SPORTS INDUSTRIES INC. A CORPORATION ET AL

S Motion For Summary Judgment Matter on Calendar for Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Line 21, Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment The motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff cannot establish causes of action 1-3 (products liability). The undisputed evidence demonstrates that defendant is in the business of providing fitness services and the squat machine was an incident to those services. See Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 424.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2013

KEVIN HARRIS VS LANDRY'S INC

The fact that the plaintiff suffered an allergic reaction was “insufficient by itself to establish the pigments were defective for purposes of strict products liability.” Hennigan v. White (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 395, 404. Plaintiff is not asserting a products liability claim for a defective product. Finally, Defendant cites Mexicali, wherein the court concluded that there is no liability for strict liability or breach of implied warranty if the injury-producing substance is natural to the food.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

JANET O MAUSNER VS TELEBRANDS CORP ET AL

Breach of Implied Warranty Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claim for breach of implied warranty is superseded by her strict products liability claims. Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is entitled “Strict Products Liability -- Breach of Implied Warranty.” In Grinnell v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MARTHA MACHADO VS HELEN GRACE CHOCOLATES LLC ET AL

Defendants Engage Technologies Corporation and Eastey Enterprises, Inc. now move the court for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s Complaint. Standard A “motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (C.C.P., § 437c(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2019

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NADER AUDIE VS ENSIGN US DRILLING (CA) INC. ET AL

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed his complaint asserting three causes of action against Defendants: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; and (3) products liability. Plaintiff is self-represented. On July 8, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint. On August 15, 2016, the Court (Hon. Donna Fields Goldstein) entered judgment in Defendants’ favor and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

N. KESSLER VS D. YEH, ET AL

Defendant Spine and Sports Surgery Center (“Surgery Center”) filed its motion for summary judgment as to the single remaining cause of action brought by Plaintiff Nancy Kessler (“Plaintiff”) against the Surgery Center for medical malpractice. The second cause of action for products liability was dismissed as to the Surgery Center on November 13, 2017. The motion was properly served and notice was sufficient and proper. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2018

SCOTT V. MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES

With respect to Issue Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant requests summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims for “strict and negligent products liability” and “breach of express and implied warranty. The court notes the that the First Amended Complaint (FAC), filed on 11-7-17, designates these claims as counts within fourth cause of action (“Products Liability) against Defendant. It is unclear whether Defendant’s Notice seeks adjudication of all theories within the fourth cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. V. STYLE-LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Nor does Style-Line’s FACC allege any products liability theory. In its opposition Style-Line claims that its “equitable indemnity claims are based on strict and negligent products liability,” citing the FACC at paragraph 26. However, the FACC makes no mention of products liability, strict or negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

HOPKINS V. STATE INDUSTRIES, INC.

Defendant State Industries, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of the Causes of Action of the 2nd Amended Complaint. Defendant State industries, Inc. moves for entry of summary judgment in its favor, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty causes of action on various grounds. Plaintiff opposes the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication on various grounds.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2017

MICHAEL SIMEON SMITH VS AMERICAN IDOL PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

(“WLI”) were used during the impression procedure, such that Plaintiff now asserts various products liability causes of action against WLI. On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability: design defect; (3) strict products liability: failure to warn; (4) products liability: negligence; (5) breach of express warranty; and (6) breach of implied warranty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

JOSE VILLANUEVA VS LKQ BEST AUTOMOTIVE CORP

He seeks leave to add a cause of action for products liability against Defendant. He contends he learned, during Defendant’s deposition, that Defendant manufactured the hoist that caused his injuries, such that a cause of action for products liability is appropriately asserted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEONARD FERNANDEZ ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC ET AL

.: BC576759 (Consolidated with BC576954 and BC634587) [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Motion of Defendant General Motors LLC for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Background This case consists of three consolidated cases. Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) moves for summary judgment in regards to the action pursued by Plaintiff Juan Sandoval (“Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2017

LEONARD FERNANDEZ ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC ET AL

.: BC576759 (Consolidated with BC576954 and BC634587) [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Motion of Defendant General Motors LLC for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Background This case consists of three consolidated cases. Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) moves for summary judgment in regards to the action pursued by Plaintiff Juan Sandoval (“Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2017

TARON MALKHASHYAN VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

On April 14, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint, and on May 25, 2018, the operative third amended complaint, for (1) negligent supervision, protection based on special relationship; (2) general negligence; (3) products liability – strict liability; (4) products liability – negligence; (5) products liability – failure to warn; (6) products liability – implied warranties; and (7) products liability – express warranties.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2018

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

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Of Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 22, 2014 in Department 503, Line 1. Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant failed to demonstrate that all of plaintiffs' claims against it fail even if defendant owed no duty to Elaine Percy. Duty is not an element of strict products liability. (Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2014

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

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Of Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, August 19, 2014 in Department 503, Line 2. Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant failed to demonstrate that all of plaintiffs' claims against it fail even if defendant owed no duty to Elaine Percy. Duty is not an element of strict products liability. (Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2014

RAMIREZ LOPEZ VS. CJ FOODS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

DEF CJ Foods Manufacturing Corporation Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication The motion by defendant CJ Foods Manufacturing Corporation (“Defendant”) for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for summary adjudication of issues, is granted. At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff Sonia Noemi Ramirez Lopez (“Plaintiff”) concedes that her fifth and sixth causes of action for strict products liability are not viable against Defendant and should be dismissed. (Opp’n at 11.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

SHARIF ELAKABAWI VS EGGERS INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

., for: 1. strict products liability – manufacturing defect; 2. strict products liability – design defect; 3. products liability – negligent manufacturing and design; 4. negligence; 5. negligent infliction of emotional distress. At times relevant to the complaint, Plaintiff Elakabawi worked as a certified registered nurse anesthetist for Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (“Permanente”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

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

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Of Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, September 25, 2014 in Department 503, Line 1. Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant failed to demonstrate that all of plaintiffs' claims against it fail even if defendant owed no duty to Elaine Percy. Duty is not an element of strict products liability. (Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2014

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O SCOTT BOOS AND CECILIA BOOS VS. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

The court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for strict products liability and negligence. Defendant’s objection to the Declaration of Mrs. Boos is overruled. Defendant’s objection Nos. 1 through 4 to the Declaration of Bruce Agle are overruled. The court sustains Defendant’s objection No. 2 to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel, and overrules the remainder.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2016

ALEXIS FERNANDEZ ET AL VS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COM

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « first    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.