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

1-25 of 24,419 results

RYAN REARDON VS SMOKE DEPOT

Defendants, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, knew of the risk that the E-cigarette would explode and knowingly failed to take steps to design and manufacture a safer product, or warn consumers of such known risks. Defendants, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, placed profit over safety and knowingly decided to forego safer designs because of decisions to cut corners and costs. 42.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RYAN REARDON VS SMOKE DEPOT

Defendants, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, knew of the risk that the E-cigarette would explode and knowingly failed to take steps to design and manufacture a safer product, or warn consumers of such known risks. Defendants, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, placed profit over safety and knowingly decided to forego safer designs because of decisions to cut corners and costs. 42.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GOMEZ, ET AL. V. TURFEVOLUTIONS, ET AL.

Section 473 is applicable because the dismissal of the Does 1-50 is the equivalent of a default. Relief is mandatory because there is an attorney affidavit of fault. (Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1604.) Here, Plaintiffs’ Counsel Allen V. Feghali now properly declares in a sworn declaration that he accidentally dismissed Does 1-50 when he in fact meant to dismiss Does 5-50.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2018

GOMEZ, ET AL. V. TURFEVOLUTIONS, ET AL.

Section 473 is applicable because the dismissal of the Does 1-50 is the equivalent of a default. Relief is mandatory because there is an attorney affidavit of fault. (Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1604.) Here, Plaintiffs’ Counsel Allen V. Feghali now properly declares in a sworn declaration that he accidentally dismissed Does 1-50 when he in fact meant to dismiss Does 5-50.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2018

BHP HOLDING PARTNERS, LTD. VS ALEJANDRO BORJAS, ET AL.

[OK] Judgment Included (Conform to L.R. 3.0; 8.96): [ ] Other: TENTATIVE: [X] GRANT: [ ] same as requested: Amount: $101,432.74 [X] reduced: Reduce attorney’s fees by $17,159.35 [X] Other: CONDITIONED UPON submitting a request for dismissal of Does 1 -50.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSE RAUL MANDUJANO PEREZ VS. LESLY ANNE SAENZ, ET AL

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed August 1, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud and deceit against all Defendants; (2) wrongful foreclosure against Deutsche Bank and Does 1-50; (3) setting aside trustee’s sale against Deutsche Bank and Does 1-50; (4) cancellation of instrument against Deutsche Bank and Does 1-50; and (5) quiet title against Deutsche Bank and Does 1-50. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants Milestone Mortgage and Realty Group, Inc. (“Milestone”) and La Hacienda Realty, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SBK HOLDINGS USA INC VS EDGAR SARGSYAN ET AL

1-50), (6) unfair competition (against Edgar, Regdalin Aviation, Regdalin Properties, and Does 1-50), (7) accounting (against Edgar, Regdalin Aviation, Regdalin Properties, and Does 1-50), (8) violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (against Edgar, Regdalin Aviation, Regdalin Properties, and Does 1-50), and (9) legal malpractice (against Edgar, PLG, and Does 1-50.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SIANO VS. PUFFY DELIVERY, INC.

The FAC also names Does 1-50. “Puffy” and Does 1-50 are collectively defined as “Defendants.” (Ibid.) Although the three Named Defendants are alleged in the prefatory paragraph to be separate California corporations, paragraph 10 of the FAC converts “Puffy” into a single California corporation (emphasis added): Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that, at all relevant times, Puffy was and is a California corporation with its principal executive office located in Orange County.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

MORRISSEY VS. PACIFICA AT NEWPORT PLAZA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Defendant Pacifica and DOES 1-50); (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (v. Defendant Pacifica and DOES 1-50); (3) Negligence (v. Defendant Pacifica and DOES 1-50); (4) Intentional Misrepresentation (v. Defendants Sellers and DOES 1-50); (5) Negligent Misrepresentation (v. Defendants Sellers and DOES 1-50); and (6) Negligence (v. Defendant McGrew and DOES 1-50).

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

STANLEY VS. THE IRVINE COMPANY

.; (2) IAC AT JAMBOREE, LLC; and (3) DOES 1-50. (See ROA 2.) On 1-15-2020, the parties filed a Stipulation where Plaintiff agreed to dismiss with prejudice, “The Irvine Company Apartment Communities, Inc.” and file an amended complaint naming “Irvine Management Company” as Doe 1. (See ROA 27.) The Order was signed by the Court on the same day. (Ibid.) On 1-16-2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against THE IRVINE CO., LLC, and DOES 1-50. (See ROA 32.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

CALIFORNIA TIMBERLINE, INC. VS KEA BALANI

On May 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to the second, third, and fourth causes of action and as to Does 1-50. On May 8, 2020, dismissal was entered as to Does 1-50.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SBK HOLDINGS USA INC VS EDGAR SARGSYAN ET AL

1-50), (6) unfair competition (against Edgar, Regdalin Aviation, Regdalin Properties, and Does 1-50), (7) accounting (against Edgar, Regdalin Aviation, Regdalin Properties, and Does 1-50), (8) violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (against Edgar, Regdalin Aviation, Regdalin Properties, and Does 1-50), and (9) legal malpractice (against Edgar, PLG, and Does 1-50.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANDREA VIGLIETTA-PICHLER VS FROGURT EMPIRE INC

., individually and dba Pinkberry, as well as Does 1-50, for damages arising out of a fall from a broken chair in Defendant’s ice cream shop. Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for negligence and strict products liability. Both causes of action are pled against Frogurt and Does 1-50. At this time, Frogurt moves for judgment on the pleadings on the second cause of action for strict products liability.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2018

MICHELLE LOWE V. HAPPY YU, LLC

DOEs 1-50 must also be dismissed. Explanation: Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11 requires a statement of damages, in actions “to recover damages for personal injury.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.11, subd. (b).) However, in deciding whether a statement of damages is appropriate, Courts must look to “the nature of the tort rather than the type or extent of the damages” pled. (Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 755.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHIRA PIVEN VS LYFT, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff further alleges, “Investigations into its safety measures reveal that Lyft (and/or Does 1-50) routinely fails to adequately screen its drivers, at the expense of its customers who are placed squarely in danger. Further, Lyft (and/or Does 1-50) openly admits that it fails to exercise any supervision over drivers while they are working.” (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 27.) These allegations are insufficient to support a cause of action for fraud.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2019

TEVITA TUIFUA VS. FS PALO ALTO EMPLOYMENT

., 16 DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. Footnote 15: Footnote 18: 19

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2018

SHIRA PIVEN VS LYFT, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff further alleges, “Investigations into its safety measures reveal that Lyft (and/or Does 1-50) routinely fails to adequately screen its drivers, at the expense of its customers who are placed squarely in danger. Further, Lyft (and/or Does 1-50) openly admits that it fails to exercise any supervision over drivers while they are working.” (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 27.) These allegations are insufficient to support a cause of action for fraud.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

DR. SHANG-JUNG YANG VS RAYMOND CHIHWEI LI

On June 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendants and Does 1-50 for: On October 24, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed Lin, with prejudice. On April 15, 2019, the court ordered Impax’s and Li’s answers stricken. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: Plaintiff has not submitted a brief summary of the case, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1).

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

SHIRLEY A. STEPHENS VS BARBARA HELVEY

Does 1-50 are dismissed. Judgment is signed.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

DORY SARAFIN VS ALFONOSO VALDOVINOS

Does 1-50 are dismissed. Judgment is signed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2016

DAMMON TURNER VS MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

., and Does 150 (Alameda County Superior Court Case #RG17886784) pending in Department 17 of the Court (the “Sanchez” action); • Jene White, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. MV Public Transportation, Inc., dba MV Public Transportation and Does 1-50 (Alameda County Superior Court Case #RG18913454) pending in Department 17 of the Court (the “White” action); • Princess Teonna Destiny Arnold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2019

ELISEO CAMPOS VS CARLOS CSTELLON

Plaintiff has not dismissed Does 1-50. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) 2. Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the sum of $15,000.00, but has not identified whether attorney’s fees are recoverable pursuant to contract or statute. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9).) 3. Exhibit 2 is in Spanish and does not contain a certified translation. 4. The court must conduct an evidentiary hearing because this action involves a claim for Quiet Title. (CCP 764.010; see Winter v. Rice (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 679, 683.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

NATASHA KOMADINA VS THE MEADOWS APARTMENT HOMES LP

THE MEADOWS APARTMENT HOMES, LP, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive Defendants. Case No.: BC641483 ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT DEPARTMENT 97 OF THE PERSONAL INJURY (PI) COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION: IS NOT A PERSONAL INJURY CASE AS DEFINED IN THE COURT’S MOST RECENT GENERAL ORDER RE: GENERAL JURISDICTION PERSONAL INJURY CASES. AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1, THIS CASE IS HEREBY: TRANSFERRED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE ROBERT L.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

SANDRA VAUGHAN VS WESTERN MERCHANDISE EXPRESS INC ET AL

Carrasco (“Carrasco”) and DOES 1-50, asserts a cause of action for Negligence. On 9/29/15, plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein she substituted WMX Logistics, Inc. (“WMX”) in for DOE 1. Case No. BC 524257: Plaintiff Virginia Antonio (“Antonio”) is suing for damages arising out of the subject accident. The complaint was filed on 10/10/13.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SANDRA VAUGHAN VS WESTERN MERCHANDISE EXPRESS INC ET AL

Carrasco (“Carrasco”) and DOES 1-50, asserts a cause of action for negligence. On 9/29/15, plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein she substituted WMX Logistics, Inc. (“WMX”) in for DOE 1. In case number BC524257, plaintiff Virginia Antonio (“Antonio”) seeks damages arising from the subject accident. The complaint was filed on 10/10/13.

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

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.