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

1-25 of 104 results

ISKANDER VS. ALBERTS

Biddle obtained approval from the City of San Bernardino (the “City”). (Schweitzer Decl., Amended Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1.) For example, Plaintiff identified the December 3, 2015 deposition testimony of Mr. Biddle as evidence Defendants could have used to defeat the Biddle motion for summary judgment. (Schweitzer Decl., Amended Answers to Special Interrogatories, Set No. 1, Response No. 1.) In this testimony, Mr.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

DODD V. AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY LIVING CORPORATION 10:00 A.M.

The Staff Report of the Economic Development Agency of the City of San Bernardino, at page 23 states, “In May 1996, the EDA caused the Formation of The San Bernardino Mobilehome Park Corporation (the ‘Parent Non-profit Corporation’) and eight subsidiaries thereof representing each park.” (Petitioner’s Exhibits Volume 1, filed on 9-17-19 under ROA No. 92; Exhibit 4); 4. Mr. Sabo testified, “Well, the legal entity is the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

SOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE VS. SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT [E-FILE]

. _____ The hearing of the Petition (ROA # 7) of Petitioner CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ("Petitioner" or "CSB") for WRIT OF MANDATE against Respondents SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS ("Respondents") and EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ("Real Party in Interest" or "EVWD"), is CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to Thursday May 4, 2017 at 9:00 AM in D 73.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

SOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE VS. SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT [E-FILE]

. _____ The hearing of the Petition (ROA # 7) of Petitioner CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ("Petitioner" or "CSB") for WRIT OF MANDATE against Respondents SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS ("Respondents") and EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ("Real Party in Interest" or "EVWD"), is CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to Thursday May 4, 2017 at 9:00 AM in D 73.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2017

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO VS. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

The Demurrer (ROA # 17) of Respondents and Defendants East Valley Water District and East Valley Water District Board of Directors (collectively "EVWD" or "Respondents") to the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action in the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner and Plaintiff City of San Bernardino (the "City" or "Petitioner"), will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2016

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO VS. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

The Demurrer (ROA # 17) of Respondents and Defendants East Valley Water District and East Valley Water District Board of Directors (collectively "EVWD" or "Respondents") to the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action in the Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner and Plaintiff City of San Bernardino (the "City" or "Petitioner"), will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2016

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AUSTIN VS OCEANSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 703. This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may prevail only if "it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied." Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110 (citation omitted).

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ISKANDER VS. ALBERTS

Mujica, an employee of the City of San Bernardino attests that city records indicate that no application was made and no permit was issued for the Building to be used as a sober living home. (Mujica Decl.) This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendants failed to present evidence showing a triable issue of fact in opposing the Biddle motion for summary judgment. Responding party to give notice. Case Management Conference

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

RODRIGUEZ VS. HOME ENERGY SYSTEMS INC.

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 703. This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may prevail only if "... it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied." Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ISKANDER VS. ALBERTS

Haskins, went to the City of San Bernardino and advised them of the proposed use of the building, and obtained approval from the City for such use.” (Id.) Plaintiff has submitted evidence in the form of a declaration by Oliver Mujica. Mujica, an employee of the City of San Bernardino attests that city records indicate that no application was made and no permit was issued for the Building to be used as a sober living home. (Pl. Evid. in Opp., Mujica Decl.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

MARCO ANTONIO PALMA VS PATRICIA AVILA ET AL

City of San Bernardino (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 739, 749. In that case, the court determined that that the question of reasonableness was an issue for the trier of fact because “[f]rom the evidence reviewed it is apparent that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the action taken by the City was reasonable under the circumstances. The issue therefore was one of fact which should have been submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions.” De La Rosa at 749.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2019

GARDNER V. FOUNTAIN VALLEY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 701.) Where the actions at issue present essentially the same or overlapping issues, they should be consolidated and disposed of as a single proceeding. (Spector v. Superior Court of San Mateo County (1961) 55 Cal.2d 839, 844.) The purpose underlying consolidation of actions is to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions. (See McClure, on Behalf of Caruthers v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

PREMIER MECHANICAL GROUP INC VS. HARVEY

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 703. This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may prevail only if "... it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied." Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ENCORE LEASING GROUP LLC VS. THE MAINE WOOD TREATERS INC

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 703.) This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may prevail only if "it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied." (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110 (citation omitted).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GONZALEZ VS. VLS INVESTMENT GROUP

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 703. This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may prevail only if "... it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied." Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PREMIER MECHANICAL GROUP INC VS. HARVEY

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 703. This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence may prevail only if "... it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied." Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EDDIE COFFEE VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 687, 701. Consolidation may also be ordered for the purpose of trial of related issues. Id. This permits the evidence presented in one case to be deemed applicable in the other case, but separate findings and judgments must be made in each case in disposition of the particular issues as independently submitted. Id.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COLLABORATIVE ET AL VS CITY OF L A ET

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 701; McClure v. Donovan (1949) 33 Cal.2d 717, 722; Sanchez v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1391, 1396; McFarland v. Booker (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 402, 416; Wegner, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 4:432.23; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 347; 1A Cal. Jur.3d (2019) Actions, § 179.) For the same reasons articulated in that ruling, the instant motion is without merit.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DOE V. EL DORADO COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 701-702.) Absent opposition, under the circumstances presented, it appears appropriate to grant the motion. TENTATIVE RULING # 5: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES IS GRANTED. DOE V. EL DORADO COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL DIST., CASE NUMBER PC- 20180052, IS THE LEAD CASE. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS V.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

TERRY V MEINZER VS. WAI CHONG

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App. 4th 687, 703.) The court must accept as true the evidence supporting the jury's verdict, disregarding all conflicting evidence and indulging in every legitimate inference that may be drawn in support of the judgment. The court may grant the motion only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. (Kephart v. Genuity (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 280, 289.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PESTARINO VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 687, 704. Section 1983 applies to persons acting “under color of” state law, and normally does not apply to private actors. (See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks (1978) 436 U.S. 149, 155–156.) “A private individual may be liable under section 1983 if she conspired or entered joint action with a state actor. [Citation.]” (Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir.2002).) See, Dwight R. v. Christy B. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 697, 714.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

IN RE: COREY SILVERSTROM V. PACIFIC PROPERTY AND CASUALTYCOMPANY

City of San Bernardino (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 942, 950–951, 109 Cal.Rptr. 510; Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 678; McRae v. Superior Court (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 166, 171, 34 Cal.Rptr. 346.) It is also up to the arbitrator, and not the court, to grant relief for delay in bringing an arbitration to a resolution. (Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1808, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 678; Byerly v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JORDAN STREMFEL VS NADER KALANTAR, , M.D., ET AL.

City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, 780 [“Under California law, a judgment is not final for purposes of res judicata during the pendency of and until the resolution of the appeal”].) Because a final judgment would preclude this action against Dr. Kalantar, the Court finds it appropriate to stay proceedings in this matter until the finality of the judgment in Case No. BC6557433 has been determined.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM VS. GRAND CENTRAL WEST LLC

City of San Bernardino (2008) 43 Cal.4th 400, 410. In Manta, the City of San Bernardino obtained a preliminary injunction against an adult cabaret business for violating a zoning ordinance. The injunction was eventually overturned and the ordinance was found unconstitutional. The business sued the city for violating its civil rights and sought lost profits caused while the injunction was in effect. Id. at 403.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM VS. GRAND CENTRAL WEST LLC

City of San Bernardino (2008) 43 Cal.4th 400, 410. In Manta, the City of San Bernardino obtained a preliminary injunction against an adult cabaret business for violating a zoning ordinance. The injunction was eventually overturned and the ordinance was found unconstitutional. The business sued the city for violating its civil rights and sought lost profits caused while the injunction was in effect. Id. at 403.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.