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

51-75 of 324 results

MICHAEL SCANLON VS KRISTA KATHLEEN HAUK ET AL

The Court must “impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CHUONG THAI VS CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

“The Court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(j).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

REBECCA RECKERS VS JOHN C LIPHAM MD ET AL

A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.040.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2017

PAULA MATELLI VS FCA US LLC

Under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2025.480(k), if a party fails to obey a court order compelling it to provide a discovery response with respect to a deposition, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . .

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

FATEMEH KERMANI VS DANNY OSMANYAN ET AL

However, the Court must set an OSC re: Contempt before it may issue a contempt sanction against Shubaralayan. Accordingly, an OSC re: Contempt is set for January 24, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 98. Shubaralayan is ordered to appear and to show cause for why a contempt sanction should not be issued for his failure to appear and testify at his deposition. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2017

NATALIA S ROCHA VS JAMES SEALEY

A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order striking out the pleadings in whole or in part, staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed, dismissing part or all of the action, or rendering a judgment by default. Id., §§ 2023.030(d)(1)-(4). “‘Only two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply … and (2) the failure must be willful.’” Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

CANDICE ROTHMAN VS LOVIS DELI

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2018

STAR FACCUSEH GALLEGOS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.040. Defendants’ Notices of Motion do not identify each person and attorney against whom sanctions are sought. Defendants’ request for sanctions is therefore denied.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JAMES THOMPSON JR VS ARMENAG HOVSEP AVAKIAN ET AL

If a motion to compel a deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition unless the court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that imposition of the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

STAR FACCUSEH GALLEGOS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.040. Defendants’ Notices of Motion do not identify each person and attorney against whom sanctions are sought. Defendants’ request for sanctions is therefore denied.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

FERNANDO M PADILLA MORENO VS JPMAN INC

The court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition, unless the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ROSTACK INVESTMENTS INC VS ANGELA C SABELLA

As to evidence sanctions, “[t]he court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” (Id.) In selecting the appropriate sanction, a trial court “should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery,” and should tailor the sanction to fit the harm caused by the abuse of the discovery process. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2018

BC645635

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

SYLVIA PARRA VS BIG LOTS STORES INC

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

DOMINICK MONTROY VS JENNA PASSIN

The court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition, unless the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,965.00, contending that she has incurred $645.00 in court reporter fees for Plaintiff’s non-appearances.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ASTON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INC VS METABRAND MARKETING ET AL

Monetary Sanctions California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2025.450(g)(1) states that “[i]f a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JANET MARIE WALTON VS TORRANCE MEMORIAL CENTER

The court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition, unless the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Id., § 2025.450(g).) Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed Motions are GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2017

LINDA RILEY VS RABINDRA WATSON MD ET AL

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2018

PARIROKH FAKHERI VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2016

RONDA MAHONEY VS ALBERTSON'S

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2018

PARRISH HANOUN VS LTSC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2018

ZELDA ADAMS VS CHARLES EDWARD

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel response and compliance with a demand for a physical examination, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id., § 2032.240(c).) Defendant seeks an external physical examination of Plaintiff for the injuries alleged in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOSE GERARDO GUERRERO ACOSTA VS MIGUEL ANGEL BAOUTISTA ET

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

BC670701

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

STEVEN J TIMOSHUK VS HERTZ VEHICLES LLC ET AL

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to [discovery], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.