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

1-25 of 716 results

RONALD LOWE JR ET AL VS R-3 CONTRACTORS ET AL

As such, this waiver is read to mean Moving Party consents to Panish Shea & Boyle LLP’s and Morey & Upton, LLP’s representation regarding settlement disbursement, except if there is an aggregate settlement, which is what is present here. As such, Moving Party did not consent to Panish Shea & Boyle LLP’s and Morey & Upton, LLP’s representation at the current juncture.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JINGHUI HUANG ET AL VS KINCAID SIEGA OROSCO ET AL

Additional expenses incurred by Alex’s attorneys will be reimbursed, including $4,493.05 to McCarthy & Kroes, and $49.25 to Panish Shea & Boyle, for a total expense reimbursement of $4,542.30. None of the expenses for which reimbursement is sought have been paid by petitioners. Deducting the medical lien ($20,812.08), attorneys’ fees ($216,666.67), and expenses ($4,542.30) from the amount of the settlement ($650,000), the balance to be paid to Alex totals $407,978.95.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RICHARD ANTHONY EASBEY V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

Panish, Candice Klein, Sarah Kim, Panish Shea & Boyle LLP; Renee J. Nordstrand, Matthew M. Morrison, NordstrandBlack PC For Defendant Southern California Edison: Jason M. Booth, Paul D. Rasmussen, Benjamin L. Caplan, Booth LLP; Leon Bass, Jr., Laura A.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2019

PETER L KAUFMAN ET AL VS PROSPECT FUNDING

Kaufman and Panish, Shea & Boyle, LLP (“Petitioners”) move to vacate the November 10, 2016 Arbitration Decision and Award (“Arbitration Award”) rendered by Arbitration Resolution Services, Inc. (“ARS”) against them and in favor for Respondent Prospect Funding (“Respondent”). Respondent opposes the petition and seeks to confirm the Arbitration Award. The underlying dispute was for breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2017

SANTIAGO CASTILLA VS NIJAR REALTY INC ET AL

No retainer agreement with Panish, Shea & Boyle is attached. Second, no backup substantiates the $256,080.86 claimed in Item 14.b. as expenses, and there is no explanation of the $52,000 in living expenses paid to Petitioner. Third, in considering the reasonableness of attorney’s fees, California Rule of Court 7.955 states the Court may consider the time and labor required.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

KYLE RICHARD GEE VS ALL CARTAGE TRANSPORTATION INC ET AL

After the dismissal, Plaintiff’s counsel Panish Shea & Boyle LLP (the “Panish firm”) retained Herbert as an expert witness to evaluate standard of care issues with respect to the accident. Counsel for Rowden and Staffmark did not know that Herbert had been previously retained by Laderman until Herbert was deposed on September 19, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HUGO MEDINA ET AL VS LIQUID ASPHALT SYSTEMS INC ET AL

On February 10, 2020, Patrick Gunning of Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP (“Counsel”), counsel for Plaintiff Torres, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 284, subdivision (2). On February 28, 2020, Morey & Upton, LLP filed a Request for Dismissal of the complaint as to Plaintiff Hugo Medina only. Dismissal was entered as to Plaintiff Hugo Medina on March 3, 2020. Trial is set for May 20, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

I and the team at Panish Shea & Boyle along with Michael Sacchetto spent a considerable amount of time and resources working on this case. From the outset, after discussing this case with my litigation team, I reviewed the facts in this case, reviewed incident photographs and medical records, analyzed the details of the injury, causation, discussed experts we would need on this case, and mapped out a discovery plan. . . .

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RICO STOLL ET AL VS LAFONTAINE GLOBAL LLC ET AL

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL; MOTION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED Brian Panish, counsel of record for Plaintiff Gerda Bendig, seeks to be relieved on grounds Plaintiff has terminated the representation, as indicated by co-counsel. (Declaration of Brian J. Panish, Exh. A.) Absent a showing of resulting prejudice, an attorney’s request for withdrawal should be granted. (People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 406.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JACK JEVNE VS KEVIN CHARLES BOYLE ET AL

Documents required to be filed to resolve service issues on defendants Boyle and Rebecca McClean shall be filed and served on or before June 20, 2018. Background: In this action, plaintiff Jack Jevne alleges that he loaned $500,000 to defendant Kevin Charles Boyle pursuant to an agreement by which Jevne would be repaid his money and in addition Boyle would pay Jevne 20 percent of the money Boyle recovered in Boyle’s legal action entitled Boyle v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2018

JACK JEVNE VS KEVIN CHARLES BOYLE

Jevne alleges that he loaned Boyle and McLean $537,800 to be repaid plus 20% of all monies received in Boyle’s legal action entitled Boyle v. Warner, Case No. 1438671. Jevne alleges that Boyle settled that case for millions of dollars but refused to pay any part of the 20% of recovery or the amount borrowed. Defendant Bertling represented Boyle in Boyle v. Warner and represented Jevne in various legal matters, including defending Jevne when his deposition was taken in Boyle v. Warner.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2018

KEVIN CHARLES BOYLE V. TY WARNER

[SSUMF #28] Nuovo Inizio had licensed the name “Kevin Charles” from Boyle. [SSUMF #29] As of June 1, 2012, Boyle did not own stock in Nuovo Inizio. [SSUMF #30] Boyle was an employee and/or a contractor of Nuovo Inizio. [SSUMF #31] As long as Boyle had a relationship with Nuovo Inizio, he was prohibited from using the name “Kevin Charles” in connection with the operation of any salon at the Biltmore. [SSUMF #32] Boyle has admitted he transferred all of his interests in Nuovo Inizio to the Trust.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2017

EDITH VALDEZ ET ALV VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

BOYLE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE IS GRANTED. Attorney Mark H. Boyle (“Applicant”) seeks admission to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Defendants Ford Motor Company and South Bay Ford, Inc. (erroneously sued as South Bay Lincoln Ford) in this action alongside Daniel S. Rodman and Alina Mooradian of Snell & Wilmer LLP, active members of the State Bar of California. Applicant is a resident of Illinois and is a member in good standing in the State of Illinois. (Boyle Decl. ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

KEVIN BOYLE V. TY WARNER, ET AL.

Muratori and Sage are alleged only to have demanded that Boyle vacate the premises and that Boyle felt intimidated. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Boyle does not allege that Muratori or Sage actually participated in dispossessing Boyle, which occurred later when the lock was changed in Boyle’s absence. (Complaint, ¶ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2014

KEVIN BOYLE V. TY WARNER, ET AL.

On August 20, 2015, Boyle filed opposition with the court. The opposition was served on August 19, 2015. According to the declaration of counsel for Boyle, Peter G. Bertling, the deadline for filing opposition was miscalendared by his office leading to the missed deadline. (Bertling decl., ¶ 3.) This error was discovered on August 18 at 8:46 a.m. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2015

KEVIN BOYLE V. TY WARNER, ET AL.

The court orders defendant Kevin Boyle to pay $1,545 to counsel for 1260 BB Properties, LLC, on or before March 1, 2016 2.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2016

COMMUNITY FORESTRY INT'L VS EVELYN BOYLE

Nature of Proceedings: Hearing: Claim of Exemption The court sustains defendant Evelyn Boyle?s claim of exemption and orders the sheriff to return the funds held pursuant to the writ of execution to the defendant Evelyn Boyle. Ms. Boyle has offered to enter into a payment plan with plaintiff. The court asks the parties to meet to work out a payment arrangement.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2007

AVIA SPA PROPERTY, INC VS CARLYLE SALON & STYLE BAR, LLC

Thyne, III (“Thyne Law”); Goodwin & Thyne Properties (“G&T”); and Marcus Boyle. G&T is the real estate brokerage that has listed the subject property and Boyle is the real estate agent representing the property. Thyne Law purports to represent both G&T and Boyle as well as Avia. Motions: Avia moves to quash the deposition subpoenas, objecting to four requests in each subpoena. Avia contends the four requests run afoul of the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product privilege.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KEVIN BOYLE V. TY WARNER, ET AL.

Defendants sought to vacate the trial date, after discovering that Boyle had transferred his interest in the lease to the Keven Charles Trust, an irrevocable trust, of which Boyle is settlor and a beneficiary, along with his children. Sophie Boyle is the trustee, and attorney Timothy Buynak is the special trustee. The purported transfer of the lease occurred on 6/1/12, 9 months prior to the termination of Boyle’s lease on 2/28/13.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2016

KEVIN BOYLE V. TY WARNER, ET AL.

The reason for the application is defendants’ discovery that Boyle transferred his interest in the lease to the Kevin Charles Trust, an irrevocable trust, of which Boyle is settlor and a beneficiary, along with his children. Sophie Boyle is the trustee and Timothy Buynak is the “special trustee.” The purported transfer of the lease occurred on June 1, 2012 – nine months prior to the termination of Boyle’s lease on February 28, 2013.

  • Hearing

    Feb 29, 2016

ERIN MURPHEY, ET AL. V. RICHARD J. HURVITZ, ET AL.

Indeed, plaintiffs have asserted negligence claims against Butler and Boyle, to which Butler and Boyle have not demurred. But plaintiffs’ own authority conclusively establishes that Butler and Boyle are not liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Therefore, the Court will sustain the demurrer. 3.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2018

THE ROOTER DOCTOR VS HCC INSURANCE HOLDINGS

Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 343 [309 P.2d 809]), appeal from an adverse judgment (Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21 [68 P.2d 968] ( Boyle)), seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 522 [51 Cal.Rptr. 633]), or renew a judgment obtained prior to suspension ( Timberline, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1367).

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2014

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERT ERINGER ET AL VS MEGA GROUP PRIVATE ETC ET AL

Background: This action concerns a website that allegedly posted defamatory statements and information regarding plaintiffs Robert Eringer, Elizabeth Eringer, Marcus Boyle, Claire Boyle, Rylan Boyle (the minor child of Marcus and Claire Boyle), Darren Wass, Olivia Eringer and Oliver Wass (the minor child of Darren Wass and Olivia Eringer). Defendants are Mega Group Private Investigations, Inc., Mega Group Online, Inc., Zeev Haskal, Sarah Byrnes and Does 1-100.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2013

BOYLE VS JOHNSON CONTROLS INC

Count one alleges FEHA sex harassment by plaintiffs Timothy Boyle and Robert Boyle against defendants. Count one also alleges FEHA age harassment by plaintiff Gary Brown against defendants. Count one fails against Timothy Boyle and Robert Boyle because it does not allege offending conduct taken against Timothy Boyle and Robert Boyle because of their sex. Also, it does not allege disparate treatment of an employee because of sex. See Kelley v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BOYLE VS JOHNSON CONTROLS INC

Count one alleges FEHA sex harassment by plaintiffs Timothy Boyle and Robert Boyle against defendants. Count one also alleges FEHA age harassment by plaintiff Gary Brown against defendants. Count one fails against Timothy Boyle and Robert Boyle because it does not allege offending conduct taken against Timothy Boyle and Robert Boyle because of their sex. Also, it does not allege disparate treatment of an employee because of sex. See Kelley v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.