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

JUAN ARREGUIN, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

(Ibid.) “ ‘[T]he economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to “other property”, that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself.’ ” (Id. at p. 989.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JONATHAN ROJAS VS ORION PLASTICS CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Negligence; Products Liability; Breach of Warranty; and Negligent Hiring, Retentions, Training, and Supervision. Davis-Standard now moves to quash service of the Summons and Complaint. Concurrently, Orion moves for summary judgment. Rojas opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion to quash and denies the motion for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Conclusion Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. THE PARTIES ARE STRONGLY URGED TO APPEAR AT ALL SCHEDULED HEARINGS BY TELEPHONE OR COURTCALL. ALL SOCIAL DISTANCING PROTOCOLS SHALL BE OBSERVED IN THE COURTHOUSE AND IN THE COURTROOMS.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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

MATTHEW D CINQUANTA VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC ET AL

(Ibid.) “ ‘[T]he economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to “other property”, that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself.’ ” (Id. at p. 989.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

MARK ANTHONY RAMOS ET AL VS ANZO NOBEL COATINGS INC ET AL

A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DON A YOUNG VS EAGLERIDER INC ET AL

“If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY CREMEANS VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ET AL

Motion for Summary Judgment Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jeffrey Cremeans (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“Defendant”) on July 16, 2018, alleging causes of action for: negligence; strict liability for ultrahazardous activities; strict products liability; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LUMINA V. UMINA

Linn (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 245, 250, 205 Cal.Rptr. 550 [complaint alleged products liability based on manufacture and sale of liquid protein diet; plaintiffs could not avoid summary judgment by showing defendant negligently wrote book promoting diet]; see generally FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382, 282 Cal.Rptr. 508.)” (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Linn (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 245, 250, 205 Cal.Rptr. 550 [complaint alleged products liability based on manufacture and sale of liquid protein diet; plaintiffs could not avoid summary judgment by showing defendant negligently wrote book promoting diet]; see generally FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382, 282 Cal.Rptr. 508.)” (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

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

PARTAKER VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Motion: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication. Moving Party Defendant Hyundai Motor America. Responding Party Plaintiffs Victor and Shannon Partaker. Ruling: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.) The Opposition contends that Victor Partaker is the “sole remaining plaintiff.” (See Pltf.’s Sep. St. No. 42h.) There is nothing in the court record or evidence in the papers to support this contention.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

RYAN KAUFMAN VS APEEL TECHNOLOGY INC

Summary Judgment Standards: Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CCP § 437c(c).

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

KLEISER VS. CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

DEF Asics America Corporation Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication Defendant Asics America Corporation’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on the first amended complaint of plaintiffs Jane Kleiser and Ken Frasier is granted. Plaintiff Jane Kleiser alleges she tripped, fell, and was injured while playing tennis on a public tennis court in San Clemente. She was wearing ASICS Gel Solution Speed 3 tennis shoes. For her third cause of action, she has sued Defendant Asics for products liability.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

CORE HEALTH & FITNESS LLC ET AL VS NATIONAL UNION FIRE I

Rodriguez’s injuries, the jury still found that because of LA Fitness’ “negligence, gross negligence, and products liability” was 75% responsible for those damages and also awarded, on the basis of the gross negligence finding, $17 million in punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Feb 12, 2020

ROGER ALLEN OVERTON ET AL VS TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION ET AL

“If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467. “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” Avivi, 159 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RAMIREZ, ET AL. V. VPM MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

On August 10, 2017, Ramirez and Armando Barajas (collectively, “Plaintiffs’) filed a form complaint, asserting causes of action for: negligence; premises liability; and, products liability. Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that each of the causes of action against them lack merit.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

SYDNEY BERARD-MOORE V. DIGNITY HEALTH, ET AL.

That is enough to deny summary judgment. B. Plaintiff’s Showing of Triable Material Facts For purposes of completeness, the Court will look at Plaintiff’s evidence to see if Plaintiff has raised a separate issue of triable material fact that would preclude summary judgment. In opposition, Plaintiff emphasizes that Dignity does not address all of her theories of liability. She asserts it fails to address her allegations of delayed diagnosis, products liability, and res ipsa loquitur.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

ROCHEL DISI VS TAD TANOURA M D ET AL

On September 20, 2018, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) medical malpractice, (2) medical battery, (3) medical malpractice – lack of informed consent, (4) strict products liability - manufacturing defect, (5) negligent design, (6) negligence, (7) strict products liability – failure to warn, (8) negligent products liability – failure to warn, and (9) misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

NUNEZ ET AL. V. MAZDA MOTOR CORP. ET AL.

In moving for summary judgment, “[t]he defendant may ... present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.” (Aguilar [v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ENRIQUE MIJARES VS. CINCINNATI INCORPORATED

Cincinnati's Request for Summary Judgment or Adjudication on Plaintiff's Complaint Defendant Cincinnati moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication on Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff's Judicial Council Form Complaint in this action contains a single cause of action for "Products Liability," which cause of action appears to contain three "Counts" against Cincinnati: Count One for strict (products) liability, Count Two for negligence, and Count Three for Breach of Warranty.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JAIMIE VALENZUELA, ET AL. VS MARTIN ANDALUZ ABARCA, ET AL.

Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action against Utility for Products Liability—Negligence, Products Liability—Failure to Warn, Products Liability—Strict Liability, Products Liability—Breach of Warranties, Products Liability—Misrepresentation/Concealment, and Survival Action. The court has sustained the demurrer as to the Products Liability—Breach of Warranties and Products Liability—Misrepresentation/Concealment causes of action. Punitive damages are not available on a negligence cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

On the merits, a review of the court file shows that the operative First Amended Complaint alleges two causes of action – Strict Products Liability and Negligence – against moving Defendant Black Mountain Ranch, LLC (BMR LLC).

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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.