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

101-125 of 324 results

BC660721

“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 22, 2018

PHYLLIS BARNETT VS WESTFIELD GROUP

The Court may impose a terminating sanction, issue sanction, or evidence sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030(d), 2023.030(b), 2023.030(c). Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or making an evasive response to discovery. Id., §§ 2023.010(d), (e).

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2016

LATONYA MARKS VS LAFAVEN DESHAWN ADAMS 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), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO VS RUFINO PECH ET AL

When a party seeks sanctions, his or her notice of motion must specify the type of sanction sought and identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.040. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion does not include a request for monetary sanctions and does not identify the person against whom sanctions are sought. The request for sanctions is therefore DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

AYELYDA QUINTANILLA VS L A COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATIO

The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d). Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. Id., §§ 2023.010(d), (g).

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RASHELL KHAN VS ARIA CAMARILLO ZUBER

The Court must impose monetary sanctions, 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. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,245.00, contending that three hours were spent preparing this Motion and three hours will be spent preparing a reply and appearing at the hearing, at a rate of $175.00 per hour.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RODOLFO SEGUNDO MARTINEZ VS JUAN CARLOS BETANCOURT ET AL

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to 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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JANE DOE VS HONGMIN ZHAO, ET AL.

“A request for 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.” (Id. at 207-208.) “A basic rule of law and motion practice is the notice shall state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and on the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Id. at 207.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JONATHAN NEIL & ASSOCIATES INC VS EUN YUN

Discovery sanctions are not a tool for litigating factual issues, and a motion for a discovery sanction is not a means of adjudicating the merits of a cause of action. Compliance with the discovery statutes is the goal, and to that end any discovery sanction issued by the court should be tailored to any noncompliant conduct. (See Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 531, 564; New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1423-1426; Lopez v.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2018

BC617353

“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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2018

DENISE NUTTER VS JOAQUIN LAZARO QUIROZ

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BC

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).) Plaintiffs have failed to appear for their noticed depositions on July 25 and 26. Defendant Gonzalez-Hernandez has made many attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on the deposition issue to no avail. (Braybrooke Decl., ¶¶ 14-18.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2017

CHARLES LESSER VS BRAND CENTRAL HOLDINGS LLC

“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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2032.240, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2018

DAVID GUEVARA VS SMART & FINAL STORES LLC

The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d). Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. Id., §§ 2023.010(d), (g).

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2017

LUIS ZULETA, ET AL. VS ELIZA KIM

“[C]ontinuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Id.) Where discovery violations are “willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

JOEL SANCHEZ ET AL VS MICHAEL SHOU-SING LEE

The Court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of Defendant and against Sanchez, unless the Court finds that Sanchez acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RONI HANNOONA VS JOSE MERCED GUTIERREZ ET AL

The Court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, unless the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here. Defendants contend that six hours were spent preparing this Motion and two hours will be spent preparing a reply, at a rate of $225.00 per hour.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

RICARDO ESTRADA VS BELKIS BEROVIDES-MARTINEZ

The Court must impose monetary sanctions, 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. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

STEPHANIE STACIE SALVATIERRA ET AL VS LUIS BLANCAS ET AL

The Court must impose monetary sanctions, 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. In light of Blancas’ apparently involuntary absence from his deposition, the Court finds sanctions to be inappropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GOFF, TIANA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN

The Court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff, unless the Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SCOTT DENSON VS U-HAUL OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

When a party seeks sanctions, his or her notice of motion must specify the type of sanction sought and identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.040. Defendants’ Notices of Motion do not include a request for monetary sanctions nor do they identify against whom those sanctions are sought. The request for sanctions is therefore DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2017

INFUSIO LIFE LLC VS TARA HAVEN

“[T]he court shall impose that sanction 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. § 2023.030(a).) “The trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions.” (Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246, 1259.) “Discovery sanctions are intended to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2019

MARIANO ABARCA ET AL VS JEFFREY MARTIN APODACA

The Court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of Defendant, unless the Court finds that Jose and Benedicto acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1). The Court finds sanctions to be appropriate here.

  • Hearing

    Mar 30, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

KIRA BEYLIN VS SANDY FAZELI ET AL

The Court must impose a monetary sanction in favor of Plaintiff, unless the Court finds that Potloff acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1). The Court finds sanctions against Potloff to be appropriate here, but will not award sanctions against her counsel.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BC648478

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to 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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) The Court finds the Motion was made and opposed with substantial justification.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2018

  « 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.