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

KRISTOPHER FAGAN VS JUSTIN HILL, ET AL.

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1037.) Moreover, “California law clearly recognizes that officers and directors owe a fiduciary duty to stockholders and controlling stockholders owe a fiduciary duty to minority stockholders.” (Singhania v. Uttarwar (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 416, 426.) “In determining whether an individual action as opposed to a derivative action lies, a court looks at ‘the gravamen of the wrong alleged in the pleadings.’ [Citation.]” (Paclink Communications Internat. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VADIM MIESEGAES V. WILLIAM AUSTIN, ET AL.

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 14, 2020

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH & CORPORATION OF NEVADA VS BOYLE

The court directs the clerk to interlineate the Judgment [ROA 127] to reflect the award of statutory costs in the amount of $2,646.76 in favor of Plaintiff International Research and Development Corporation of Nevada and against Defendant Wanda Boyle.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

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

YOUNES ABRISHAMCHI VS HAMIDREZA ALIASHRAFLOO ET AL

(Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 18; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mind Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN THE MATTER OF MIRIAM E. SCHWAB

Second preliminary distribution approved in the amount of $19,000,000.00 to be distributed proportionately to the beneficiaries as shown in the petition. Preliminary distribution of the specific bequest of the net proceeds from the sale of 1262 Cruzero, Ojai, CA as designated in decedent's will and proposed in the petition. The court discourage...

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

PLAZA FREEWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS. SAGHAFI

Similarly, Recital D on p. 1 of the Settlement Agreement provides: “The Settling Parties agree and stipulate that the elevations pertaining to the Property set forth in the report of Boyle Engineering Corporation are attached as Exhibit 1”, but the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Brutocao Declaration does not include anything marked as either Exhibit 1 or as being from Boyle Engineering.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

PLAZA FREEWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS. SAGHAFI

Similarly, Recital D on p. 1 of the Settlement Agreement provides: “The Settling Parties agree and stipulate that the elevations pertaining to the Property set forth in the report of Boyle Engineering Corporation are attached as Exhibit 1”, but the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Brutocao Declaration does not include anything marked as either Exhibit 1 or as being from Boyle Engineering.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

MELKONIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. V. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1045].) The business judgment rule applies both to claims against entities (as here) and claims against directors individually. (Scheenstra v. California Dairies, Inc., supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 387.) “The premise of the business judgment rule is that directors, not the courts, are best able to judge whether a particular act or transaction is helpful to the conduct of the organization’s affairs or expedient for the attainment of its purposes.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

SMITH VS SUHR

Boyle (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1045.) The business judgment rule creates a rebuttable presumption that a director’s decision was based on sound business judgment in absence of conflict of interest. (Berg, supra, 175 Cal. App. 4th at 1045.) The presumption can be rebutted only by affirmative allegations of facts which, if proven, would establish fraud, bad faith, overreaching or an unreasonable failure to investigate material facts. (Id. at 1046.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

Boyle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 711, citing Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 752, fn. 3.) A forum is suitable if the defendant(s) is (are) amenable to process there, and there is “no procedural bar to the other jurisdiction to reach the issues raised on the merits, or if there is, the advantage of the bar— typically the statute of limitations—is waived by all defendants.” (Boaz v. Boyle & Co., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at 711.)

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

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

LAURYN BOYLE VS. LINDER PSYCHIATRIC GROUP, INC.

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Case Management Conference - Case Management Program continued to 07/09/2020 at 08:30 in this department. New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 2.51. Please note that cases scheduled for a CM...

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

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

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

JOHN J BOYLE SR BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST JOHN J BOYLE JR VS OAKMONT OF PACIFIC BEACH LLC

Defendants OAKMONT OF PACIFIC BEACH, LLC and OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED....

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TUSTIN PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. JC ULTIMATE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, INC., ET AL.

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1035; Bennett v. Suncloud (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 91, 96.) Eighteenth and Nineteenth Causes of Action for Constructive Fraud and Fraud by Misrepresentation As discussed above, the eighteenth and nineteenth causes of action have been stricken with 15 days leave to amend. Thus, the demurrer to those causes of action has been rendered moot. Defendants shall give notice of the rulings.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY VS COHEN

Boyle & Co., Inc. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 711 (emphasis in original).) Applied to the instant case, the Court first notes that Georgia is a sister state that is quite capable of hearing legal matters and has a competent and accessible legal system, unlike other forum non conveniens motions that seek trial in foreign countries where a fair trial may not be accessible. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2019) ¶ 3:423.1, citing Shiley Inc. v. Sup.Ct.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY VS COHEN

Boyle & Co., Inc. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 711 (emphasis in original).) Applied to the instant case, the Court first notes that Georgia is a sister state that is quite capable of hearing legal matters and has a competent and accessible legal system, unlike other forum non conveniens motions that seek trial in foreign countries where a fair trial may not be accessible. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2019) ¶ 3:423.1, citing Shiley Inc. v. Sup.Ct.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

LLEJ LLC VS F & O MELROSER PLACE INC

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1043, fn. 25.) “When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, it may not omit harmful allegations . . . from previous complaints.” (Smyth v. Berman (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 183, 195.) “Unless the plaintiff provides a plausible explanation for dropping the harmful allegations . . . the trial court will take judicial notice of the harmful allegations and disregard the new and contrary allegations.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

RON HACKER VS HENRY LEVY, ET AL.

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1043, fn. 25 [100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 875].) (Lockton v. O'Rourke (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1061.) Here, the amended allegations in the 2AC are not so inconsistent with the allegations in the 1AC that they render the 2AC a sham pleading. Plaintiff previously alleged that he “did not have $875,000 to purchase the Property, at the time that Levy demanded that Hacker purchase it.” (1AC ¶ 50.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MYUNG SOO HAN VS SELECT CARE HOME HEALTH SERVICES INC ET AL

Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1043, fn. 25 [100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 875].) Lockton v. O'Rourke (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1061. “[A]s a matter of law, allegations in a complaint must yield to contrary allegations contained in exhibits to a complaint. (Citation omitted.)” Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 929 , 946.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

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.