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

151-175 of 716 results

COASTER EGGLESTON VS DAVID BARAKAT

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) In his original complaint, Eggleston did not identify his cause of action for “intentional tort.” Based upon the allegations, Barakat assumed that Eggleston was attempting to assert a cause of action for assault. Accepting this as a reasonable approach in the absence of opposition from Eggleston, the court reviewed the requirements of a cause of action for assault and determined that Eggleston had not alleged all of the facts necessary to state such an action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2013

LYNMAR WINERY V. WRIGHT CONTRACTING

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) For the purposes of this demurrer, Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to state a twenty-ninth affirmative defense based on the limitation of liability provision in the subject.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

EPIPHANY RESTAURANT LLC VS ROWBOTTAM FAMILY TRUST

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034. 2. Demurrer to Complaint Defendant challenges plaintiff’s breach of contract claim on statute of limitations grounds. Defendant contends that the action is time-barred because the complaint alleges that defendant breached the lease agreement in March 2005 when it revoked plaintiff’s option to renew the lease. Plaintiff did not file suit until September 2011, more than six years later.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2011

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

HEALTHCARE ALLY MANAGEMENT OF CAL. VS MUFG AMERICAS HOLDINGS

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) Defendant argues that the existence of an insurance policy and the identification of Defendant as an insurer is false because Defendant is a financial holding company and is not in the business of insurance. Defendant cites their Secretary of State filing which states Defendant is a “financial holding company” to support their contentions. (RJN Exhibit A.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2017

AUMAN V. COOPER

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) A complaint must be “liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties” and the court should give the complaint “a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; see also, Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238; Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490.) B.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

BAY AREA/DIABLO PETROLEUM CO. V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ET AL.

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) The Court must accept Golden Gate’s allegations as true, regardless of whether Defendants dispute those allegations. At this juncture, Golden Gate has pled sufficient facts to maintain its equal protection claim. Conclusion. Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth amended complaint is overruled. Defendants shall file an answer to the fourth amended complaint within 20 days of this ruling. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, §452(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

WHALEN VS DECISION SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION INC

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1045. There are no fact statements cited in support of this contention. Whether Defendants made their decisions in good faith remains a disputed issue of material fact. Claim for Attorney Fees Attorney fees are claimed within causes of action 2-5 (¶¶197, 214, 227 and 238). It is undisputed that this claim is not permitted such that summary adjudication of this issue is granted.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

WHALEN VS DECISION SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION INC

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1045. There are no fact statements cited in support of this contention. Whether Defendants made their decisions in good faith remains a disputed issue of material fact. Claim for Attorney Fees Attorney fees are claimed within causes of action 2-5 (¶¶197, 214, 227 and 238). It is undisputed that this claim is not permitted such that summary adjudication of this issue is granted.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ROBERT H BISNO ET AL VS LORI CADEN ET AL

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1036.) Additionally, the prior demurrer involved the fourth cause of action for fraud, not the eighth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff notes that Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue involved a $10 million merger transaction where both parties were represented by attorneys.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YOLANTA MARABOLI VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) Consequently, the court does not sustain the demurrer on this alternative ground. Motion to Strike “The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WHALEN VS DECISION SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION INC

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1045. There are no fact statements cited in support of this contention. Whether Defendants made their decisions in good faith remains a disputed issue of material fact. Claim for Attorney Fees Attorney fees are claimed within causes of action 2-5 (¶¶197, 214, 227 and 238). It is undisputed that this claim is not permitted such that summary adjudication of this issue is granted.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RODDA VS. VIDOSH

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034. The eleventh cause of action for breach of contract is overruled. Cross-Complainant alleges that Rodda breached its written employment agreement with him “by failing to pay him the entire bonus due and owing to him under the contract, thereby causing him to suffer damages.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2017

AUMAN V. COOPER

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) A complaint must be “liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties” and the court should give the complaint “a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; see also, Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238; Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1490.)B.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2018

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION V PRESBYTERIAN CAMP AND CONFERENCE CENTERS, INC., ET AL.

Boyle, 178 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1036 (2009).) The “interests of all parties are advanced by avoiding a trial and reversal for a defect in pleadings” and, if a demurrer was previously overruled, the objecting party may raise the same issue at his first opportunity by general demurrer. (Id.) The Court does not agree with Cal Fire that PCCC is precluded from raising the same issues addressed in the ruling on the demurrer to the original complaint. 3.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

CLINTON MILLER V. DENISE JARMAN

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) Moreover, when reviewing a demurrer the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239.) Jarman asks the Court to take judicial notice of a number of documents related to the Motion to Change Venue.1 While the Court may take judicial notice of the existence of official court records (Evid.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

ASHLEY TANGERAAS VS. CARL GUIDI

Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271; Boyle v. City of Redondo Beach (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1114 n.2.) "If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer." (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39; Bagatti v. Dept. of Rehabilitation (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 344, 352.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2012

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTATE OF: ALFRED ANDREOLI

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) Moreover, when reviewing a demurrer, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239.) C. DISCUSSION 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

FROUSIAKIS V. FAY SERVICING LLC

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034 (“facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”); Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601 (“For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice.”).

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

MILL LANE PRODUCTIONS, LLC V. APPLE, INC.

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034 (internal quotations omitted.) Apple’s attempted repeat demurrer to Plaintiff’s UCL claim on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts is OVERRULED and Apple is cautioned against further attempts to so demur where it was previously overruled and there has been no intervening substantive amendment of the claim in question. (See Bennett v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

CHRISTINE HEARD V. MCDONALD’S CORPORATION

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) Moreover, when reviewing a demurrer, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239.) Defendants demur to the second cause of action for willful misconduct on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e), (f).) a.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

LAW OFFICES OF PETER A JAFFE LLC VS AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY INC

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, sets forth "the principle that when a plaintiff files an amended pleading in response to an order sustaining a prior demurrer to a cause of action with leave to amend, the amended cause of action is treated as a new pleading and a defendant is free to respond to it by demurrer on any ground." Berg, 178 Cal.App.4th at 1035.

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARCELLA ANDERSON V. KENNETH GOLDBERG, DMD

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) Moreover, when reviewing a demurrer, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239.) A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

LAW OFFICES OF PETER A JAFFE LLC VS AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY INC

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, sets forth "the principle that when a plaintiff files an amended pleading in response to an order sustaining a prior demurrer to a cause of action with leave to amend, the amended cause of action is treated as a new pleading and a defendant is free to respond to it by demurrer on any ground." Berg, 178 Cal.App.4th at 1035.

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ROBERT GARFIELD V. SIMONE LAGOMARSINO

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, not the defendant. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239.) Defendants are correct that the business judgment rule generally insulates management decisions from court intervention. (Berg, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at page 1045.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

COLLEEN CLARKE V. UNILEVER, UNITED STATES, INC.

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034 [facts alleged in the pleading are deemed true for purposes of evaluating whether a complaint states a cause of action].) Footnote 2: Although the Opposition was filed late, the Court will consider the arguments made therein because Unilever was able to file a Reply and because the original hearing date (March 28, 2018) was continued allowing Unilever to request additional briefing, if needed, to fully respond to the late Opposition.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2018

  « first    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.