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 alert with new cases related to: "City of San Diego"

OTAY LAND COMPANY LLC V TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY

A judgment can be entered that would leave intact the easement which benefits the City of San Diego without it being added as a party. Thus, complete relief can be according in this action. Defendant has not shown that the City of San Diego is claiming an interest in this action. The City of San Diego does not have an apparent interest in this action. Plaintiff has represented that Plaintiff would take the property subject to the easement rights of the City of San Diego.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

OTAY LAND COMPANY LLC V TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY

A judgment can be entered that would leave intact the easement which benefits the City of San Diego without it being added as a party. Thus, complete relief can be according in this action. Defendant has not shown that the City of San Diego is claiming an interest in this action. The City of San Diego does not have an apparent interest in this action. Plaintiff has represented that Plaintiff would take the property subject to the easement rights of the City of San Diego.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA ANA CARROLA FLORES VS. JOHN EDMUND HOUSE

The City of San Diego does not own, possess or control I-5. Plaintiff offers no contrary facts, despite this lawsuit having been filed nine months ago. THEREFORE, the demurrer brought by the City of San Diego is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The City shall submit a judgment of dismissal forthwith.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MARIA ANA CARROLA FLORES VS. JOHN EDMUND HOUSE

The City of San Diego does not own, possess or control I-5. Plaintiff offers no contrary facts, despite this lawsuit having been filed nine months ago. THEREFORE, the demurrer brought by the City of San Diego is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The City shall submit a judgment of dismissal forthwith.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MARIA ANA CARROLA FLORES VS. JOHN EDMUND HOUSE

The City of San Diego does not own, possess or control I-5. Plaintiff offers no contrary facts, despite this lawsuit having been filed nine months ago. THEREFORE, the demurrer brought by the City of San Diego is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The City shall submit a judgment of dismissal forthwith.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILED]

The City of San Diego is ordered to submit a judgment of dismissal within 10 days of this ruling. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO

Also, to the extent the complaint seeks relief against the City of San Diego, the court finds the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish any basis for statutory liability against the City of San Diego. Government Code § 815; Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802; Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO

Also, to the extent the complaint seeks relief against the City of San Diego, the court finds the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish any basis for statutory liability against the City of San Diego. Government Code § 815; Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802; Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO

Also, to the extent the complaint seeks relief against the City of San Diego, the court finds the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish any basis for statutory liability against the City of San Diego. Government Code § 815; Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802; Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO

The City of San Diego is ordered to submit a judgment of dismissal within 10 days of this ruling. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILED]

The City of San Diego is ordered to submit a judgment of dismissal within 10 days of this ruling. If this tentative ruling is confirmed, the Minute Order will be the final order of the court, and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO

To the extent the complaint seeks relief against the City of San Diego, the court finds the complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to establish any basis for statutory liability against the City of San Diego. Government Code § 815; Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802; Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO

To the extent the complaint seeks relief against the City of San Diego, the court finds the complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to establish any basis for statutory liability against the City of San Diego. Government Code § 815; Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802; Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

GILLES VS THE PERSONA FICTA OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN DIEGO

To the extent the complaint seeks relief against the City of San Diego, the court finds the complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to establish any basis for statutory liability against the City of San Diego. Government Code § 815; Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802; Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

PERKINS VS US HEALTHWORKS INC

Duty The plaintiff, Steven Perkins, was an employee of the City of San Diego on April 1 2014, when he was sent to the U.S. HealthWorks facility in Kearny Mesa, San Diego, California. It is undisputed that the City of San Diego paid for the collection of his urine for the drug testing. He did not receive any medical treatment from U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group. The relationship here was between the City and US Healthworks. Any duty to use due care in evaluating Mr.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSE VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

CITY OF SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT's unopposed Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED. Default was entered against the City of San Diego Police Department on or about August 9, 2016. Plaintiff Michael Rose is asserting that the San Diego County Sherriff s Office served Defendant with his lawsuit at SDPD Internal Affairs on December 15, 2015, at 10:20am (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit 1,).

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2016

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VINOLO VS. OWENS

s motion to quash deposition subpoena of defendant City of San Diego is granted. Nothing in this ruling will prevent defendant/cross-complainant City of San Diego from eliciting the information at issue from cross-defendant Theresa Lynn Owens' father or tapes to show Owens' potential bias.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

City of San Diego, SDSC Case No. 2017-20601 is ordered consolidated with the instant case of San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, SDSC Case No. 2014-20210. The lead case shall be SDSC Case No. 2014-20210.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2017

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOSEFINA HANSING VS. RICHARD ANTHONY SEPOLIO

As such, the City of San Diego is entitled to be served with the motion to consolidate. There is no proof of service on the City of San Diego, Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is denied without prejudice. The court notes the City of San Diego is named as a cross-defendant in defendant Sepolio's cross-complaint in the instant action (ROA 10), but has not yet appeared.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOSEFINA HANSING VS. RICHARD ANTHONY SEPOLIO [E-FILE]

As such, the City of San Diego is entitled to be served with the motion to consolidate. There is no proof of service on the City of San Diego, Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is denied without prejudice. The court notes the City of San Diego is named as a cross-defendant in defendant Sepolio's cross-complaint in the instant action (ROA 10), but has not yet appeared.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HARTLEY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

TENTATIVE RULING: The Demurrer of Defendant City of San Diego to Plaintiff John Hartley's First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. The Court finds the FAC states sufficient facts, when taken as true, constitute the claims asserted therein. The Court finds the complaint is not ambiguous or otherwise uncertain. The defendant City of San Diego is directed to answer the Complaint within ten days of the Court's ruling herein.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

VINOLO VS. OWENS

s motion to quash deposition subpoena of defendant City of San Diego is granted. Nothing in this ruling will prevent defendant/cross-complainant City of San Diego from eliciting the information at issue from cross-defendant Theresa Lynn Owens' father or tapes to show Owens' potential bias.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

VINOLO VS. OWENS

s motion to quash deposition subpoena of defendant City of San Diego is granted. Nothing in this ruling will prevent defendant/cross-complainant City of San Diego from eliciting the information at issue from cross-defendant Theresa Lynn Owens' father or tapes to show Owens' potential bias.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOSEFINA HANSING VS. RICHARD ANTHONY SEPOLIO

As such, the City of San Diego is entitled to be served with the motion to consolidate. There is no proof of service on the City of San Diego, Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is denied without prejudice. The court notes the City of San Diego is named as a cross-defendant in defendant Sepolio's cross-complaint in the instant action (ROA 10), but has not yet appeared.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOSEFINA HANSING VS. RICHARD ANTHONY SEPOLIO

As such, the City of San Diego is entitled to be served with the motion to consolidate. There is no proof of service on the City of San Diego, Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is denied without prejudice. The court notes the City of San Diego is named as a cross-defendant in defendant Sepolio's cross-complaint in the instant action (ROA 10), but has not yet appeared.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 109     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.