Search anything: judges, parties, opposing counsel, motion types, legal issues

SEARCH TIPS
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
county:name county:losangeles Filter by a specific county without spaces.
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "ammend" Either terms can appear in document
"" "motion for summary judgment" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
county:name county:losangeles Filter by a specific county without spaces.
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "ammend" Either terms can appear in document
"" "motion for summary judgment" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
Rulings Dockets Documents

1-25 of results

Sort By

Get an email alert with new rulings related to:

"BANK OF AMERICA"

BEATRICE VILLAR VS. ROYAL CREDIT INDUSTRIES INC

Discussion Bank of America is not named in the complaint except in three location: at ¶2, in which P says that Bank of America is successor to Countrywide; at ¶6 where Plaintiff says that Bank of America as the successor to Countrywide was the lender and loan servicer, after the loan was originated by Royal; and at ¶20 where she says that Bank of America was a servicer with no authority (or intention) to grant her a modification.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2014

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

XXXXXXXX VS BANK OF AMERICA

However, even if the First Transfer can be subjected to common law claims for negligence, Bank of America argues that Plaintiffs cannot maintain such an action because they fail to allege facts that would indicate that Bank of America owed them a duty. Bank of America argues that Plaintiffs are not customers of Bank of America, and thus it does not owe them a duty. Plaintiffs respond that they are customers of Bank of America.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PATRICIA ANN EMERY ET AL VS JENNY MARCHICK ET AL

It appears that Bank of America filed two replies—one at 3:39 PM, the other at 3:57 P.M.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

SEVAG SALIBIAN ET AL VS BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL

The Court finds that the complaint sufficiently alleges that Bank of America owed a duty of care and breached that duty. The negligence and the premises liability causes of action are premised on the fact that a third-party physically injured Decedent, while Decedent as a patron of Bank of America was on premises owned Bank of America. (Complaint ¶ 1.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2018

CONNIE L PESQUEIRA VS. BANK OF AMERICA NA

See ROA 1, 27: Bank of America RFJN, Ex. 2; complaint, Ex. A, B, C. We also know that Bank of America assigned the deed of trust in August of 2014. Bank of America RFJN, Ex. 3. We also know from the complaint, paragraphs 39-48, that the negligence count is focused on the "extensive passage of time," "nearly eight years," during which Bank of America allegedly failed to give plaintiff a loan modification (during which time, from all that appears, plaintiff lived rent and mortgage free).

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHAVEZ V. BANK OF AMERICA ETC.

Overrule the demurrer as to the Countrywide Defendants. o Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts that Bank of America has engaged in an unfair business practice, e.g., he has failed to alleged how he was lulled into inaction by Bank of America’s representations, or how Bank of America has failed to comply with its representations. 7th CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17500 Sustain the demurrer as to Bank of America.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2010

STEPHEN DREHER, ET AL. VS BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

With respect to Bank of America, Plaintiffs’ opposition concedes that there are insufficient allegations directed towards Bank of America to support their sixth cause of action. (Opposition to Bank of America Demurrer at 2:18-19.) Plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for fraud and deceit against Bayview or Bank of America. The demurrers of Bayview and Bank of America to the sixth cause of action in the FAC are SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WAHLER – NOTICE TO CREDITORS CASE NO. [THE RVWT TRUST[

Bank of America is to file and serve any verified objection to the 10/17/16 FAP within 30 days after service of notice of this order. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: The Children Petitioners’ Third Cause of Action seeks to hold Bank of America liable for participating in Valaree’s alleged breach of her duties as trustee of the RV Trust. Bank of America argues the allegations against it are inadequate to establish that Bank of America owed any duty to the Children Petitioners, much less a fiduciary one.

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2017

HANLEY VS. BANK OF AMERICA

HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY BANK OF AMERICA * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 438 brought by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant” or “Bank of America”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2016

CVRALPH THEODULE ET AL VS BANK OF AMERICA VS. BANK OF AMERICA

Subsequently, defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) became the successor beneficiary of the deed of trust. (FAC, ¶ 11.) In 2012, Plaintiffs submitted to Bank of America a loan modification application to avoid foreclosure. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Bank of America approved Plaintiffs’ application and offered them a permanent modification contingent upon successful completion of a trial period. (FAC, ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

MATTIE BELINDA EVANS VS BANK OF AMERICA N A ET AL

Therein, Plaintiff declares: “ALL of the CAUSES OF ACTION alleged in my Second Amended Verified Complaint for Damages, are alleged against BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Individually and also against BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as ALTER EGO DEFENDANT for ALL parties and DOE DEFENDANTS.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA NA VS. MARQUEZ

(for the purposes of these requests, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. shall mean and refer to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and/or its predecessor, if any), (2) Fernando Marquez received periodic statements regarding credit account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0246 issued by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., (3) As of May 22, 2015, the balance owed by Fernando Marquez on credit account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0246 was $11,749.23, (4) No payments have been made on credit account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0246 issued by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. since May 22, 2015

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2017

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

COURTOIS VS. BANK OF AMERICA NA

However, nothing in any of the authority cited by Bank of America holds that a party may not direct a subsequent deposition subpoena for documents to a third party when the subpoenaing party determines that the initial deposition subpoena was not properly served. As such, the motion is timely. Turning to the merits, Bank of America has not responded to Plaintiff's substantive arguments regarding the documents sought in the subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BANK OF AMERICA NA VS. MARQUEZ

(for the purposes of these requests, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. shall mean and refer to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and/or its predecessor, if any), (2) Fernando Marquez received periodic statements regarding credit account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0246 issued by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., (3) As of May 22, 2015, the balance owed by Fernando Marquez on credit account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0246 was $11,749.23, (4) No payments have been made on credit account number XXXXXXXXXXXX0246 issued by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. since May 22, 2015

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2017

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

MATTIE BELINDA EVANS VS BANK OF AMERICA N A ET AL

Therein, Plaintiff declares: “ALL of the CAUSES OF ACTION alleged in my Second Amended Verified Complaint for Damages, are alleged against BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Individually and also against BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as ALTER EGO DEFENDANT for ALL parties and DOE DEFENDANTS.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

RUBIO VS BANK OF AMERICA NA

Quality Loan submits judicially noticeable evidence that Plaintiff filed a previous lawsuit against, inter alia, Bank of America, N.A., titled Robert Rubio v. Bank of America Merrill Lynch Asset Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2018-00010255-CU-OR-CTL.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

VALLEJO VS BANK OF AMERICA

The court is also inclined to order Plaintiff to pay total monetary sanctions of $401.62, to Bank of America within 20 days. Bank of America to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

IN THE MATTER OF THE BETTY M. MARCOE TRUST

Bank of America Adv. Tiered Interest Checking Acct. No. 0021 8010 0914 2. Bank of America Regular Savings Acct. No. 0021 8025 0049 3. Bank of America Fixed Term CD Acct. No. 700 006 7150 0468 4. Bank of America Fixed Term CD Acct. No. 700 021 8070 0881

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

WRIGHT VS BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

1.Defendant Bank of America N.A.’s (4) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admissions re: Rose Summers.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2019

WRIGHT VS BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

The Motion of Defendant Bank of America, N.A. to Compel Discovery Responses and to Deem Requests Admitted as to Plaintiff Tom Springer is granted. Tom Springer is ordered to provide full and complete responses to Bank of America, N.A.’s Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within 14 calendar days of this order. The responses must not contain any objections as the objections were waived by the failure to timely respond. 6.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

VERONA PARTNERS, LLC ET AL VS. BANK OF AMERICA SECURITIES, LLC ET AL

Defendants Bank Of America Securities, Llc And Bank Of America, N.A.'S Demurrer To First Amended Complaint SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2007, LINE 10. DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA SECURITIES, L.L.C. AND BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. =(302/PHA/PB)

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2007

COURTOIS VS. BANK OF AMERICA NA

However, nothing in any of the authority cited by Bank of America holds that a party may not direct a subsequent deposition subpoena for documents to a third party when the subpoenaing party determines that the initial deposition subpoena was not properly served. As such, the motion is timely. Turning to the merits, Bank of America has not responded to Plaintiff's substantive arguments regarding the documents sought in the subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIRST AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Plaintiff First American’s fifth cause of action for injunction relief seeking an order that defendant Bank of America issue deeds sufficient for recording is found to be a real property cause of action. Next, in the court’s discretion, defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s request for attorney’s fee, pursuant to C.C.P. § 396b(b), is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

HONG LY VS BANK OF AMERICA N A ET AL

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.; Defendants. Case No.: BC633891 Hearing Date: January 10, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the fourth cause of action for “Accounting.” The demurrer is otherwise OVERRULED. Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. is ordered to file an Answer to the Complaint within 20 days of notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO VS. HERMANN STREET DE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED ET AL

Plaintiff Bank Of America, N.A., As Successor By Merger To, Bank Of America N.A. As Successor By Merger To, Nomura Credit & Capital Inc.'S Motion For Order Charging Member'S Interest Unlawful Detainer Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, August 16, 2012, line 1. Plaintiff Bank Of America, N.A.'s Motion For Order Charging Member's Interest. Grant Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.'

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.