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

1-25 of 4,270 results

TULIA SANCHEZ ET AL VS JORGE GOMEZ ET AL

(Declaration of Jorge Gomez (“Jorge Gomez Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4; Declaration of Maritza Gomez (“Maritza Gomez Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4.) Defendants further attest that Maritza Gomez suffered an unspecified illness that delayed Defendants’ response. (Jorge Gomez Decl. ¶ 5; Maritza Gomez Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants’ motion was filed within six months of entry of default, as is required under the statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING LLC VS JADIRA GOMEZ

Gomez, taking into account the welfare and support of her dependent daughter, Genevieve Gomez, age five. Ms. Gomez is twenty-five years of age and currently resides with her husband, Miguel Gomez, and daughter at 107 Cardinal Avenue, Goleta, California 93117. Ms. Gomez is not currently employed and is experiencing financial hardship. (Gomez Declaration, ¶¶ 8 and 11.) Ms.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GOMEZ V. GOMEZ

Gomez Trust u/d/t dated October 14, 1988; 14.283% to Joe Gil Gomez, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Enedina Gomez Avila; 2.860% to Rosemary Gomez Wagner; 2.86% to Mary Romana Gomez Bonk; 2.86% to Stephen Michael Gomez; 2.86% to Joe Louis Gomez; 1.428% to Paul Gomez; 1.428% to Valerie Gomez; 14.283% to David R. Gomez and Stella H. Gomez, Co-Trustees of the David G. Gomez and Teresa R. Gomez 2009 Family Trust; 14.283% to Mary M.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2016

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PAMELA A ECKERT-GOMEZ VS SCOTT KOSNER, ET AL.

Eckert-Gomez et al. v. Scott Kosner et al. (20GDCV00484) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Scott Kosner and The Kosner Firm, Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART. As a preliminary matter, plaintiff Pamela Eckert-Gomez alleges she is the successor in interest to Garrett Keith Gomez. (Compl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JUAN CERVANTES VS. CARLOS DAVID GOMEZ

Against Gomez Matters in the Requests for Admission ("RFA") and for $860 in Monetary Sanctions Against Gomez.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ZENITH INSURANCE CO., VALENTIN FRAGA GOMEZ,PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION V. ALBERTO RIVERA

Gomez suffered traumatic injuries requiring that he be airlifted to Community Regional Medical Center. On December 31, 2013, pursuant to stipulation, an order was filed that permitted Mr. Gomez to file a Complaint in Intervention. This pleading was filed on January 15, 2014. On February 18, 2014, Gomez filed proof of service showing that Mr. Rivera was personally served with the complaint-in-intervention on February 11, 2014. On June 27, 2014, Gomez requested the entry of default. It was granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ZENITH INSURANCE CO., VALENTIN FRAGA GOMEZ,PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION V. ALBERTO RIVERA

Gomez suffered traumatic injuries requiring that he be airlifted to Community Regional Medical Center. On December 31, 2013, pursuant to stipulation, an order was filed that permitted Mr. Gomez to file a Complaint in Intervention. This pleading was filed on January 15, 2014. On February 18, 2014, Gomez filed proof of service showing that Mr. Rivera was personally served with the complaint-in-intervention on February 11, 2014. On June 27, 2014, Gomez requested the entry of default. It was granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiff Gomez does not explain in what other manner he could have personally entered into an oral contract pertaining to a merger of GRI and SDCS. Plaintiff Gomez alleges the parties agreed Plaintiff Gomez would own 50% of the new business effective January 14, 2014, but the allegations are that GRI was merging, not Plaintiff Gomez as an individual. (FAC, ¶ 109.) However, Plaintiff Gomez alleges it was also agreed he would continue to be employed by the new business. (FAC, ¶ 109.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ELSA MORALES ET AL VS MERCADO CAPITAL CORPORATION ET AL

Issues to be Addressed by Defendants: Defendants have filed one motion to compel responses from each of the following Plaintiffs: Mario Gomez Covarrubias, Mario Guadalupe Gomez Chaires, Carmen Elizabeth Gomez Chaires, Laura Margarita Gomez Chaires, Jose De Jesus Gomez Chaires, Luis Gomez, and Leslye Gomez (collectively, “the Gomez Plaintiffs”).

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOSE HORTA

(“Plaintiff”) served a Request for Admissions on Defendant Pedro Gomez (“Gomez”). (Thai Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) To date, Plaintiff has not received any discovery response to the propounded discovery request from Gomez. (Id. ¶ 6.) On July 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Request for Admissions as Admitted and to Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). On August 17, 2018, Gomez filed an opposition (labeled as a response) to the Motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MATTHEW SHADSIRAT ET AL VS CARLITOS WAY INCE ET AL

July 6, 2020 On April 3, 2018, Matthew Shadsirat (Shadsirat) and Nathan Gomez-Rodriguez (Gomez), by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Mirna Gomez-Rivas (Gomez-Rivas), as decedent Julio Rodriguez’s (Rodriguez or decedent) successor in interest, filed a complaint against Carlitos Way, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiffs do no more than submit the self-serving declaration of Plaintiff Gomez disputing the circumstances of how and when the declaration was signed. (Decl. Gomez, ¶¶ 50-51.) Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence to show Alberto Gomez's latest declaration is not accurate. Plaintiff Gomez merely suggests influence by stating Alberto Gomez was working for Mr. Chavez at the time the modified declaration was signed. A suggestion Alberto Gomez may be lying in his most recent declaration is not evidence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiffs do no more than submit the self-serving declaration of Plaintiff Gomez disputing the circumstances of how and when the declaration was signed. (Decl. Gomez, ¶¶ 50-51.) Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence to show Alberto Gomez's latest declaration is not accurate. Plaintiff Gomez merely suggests influence by stating Alberto Gomez was working for Mr. Chavez at the time the modified declaration was signed. A suggestion Alberto Gomez may be lying in his most recent declaration is not evidence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiffs do no more than submit the self-serving declaration of Plaintiff Gomez disputing the circumstances of how and when the declaration was signed. (Decl. Gomez, ¶¶ 50-51.) Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence to show Alberto Gomez's latest declaration is not accurate. Plaintiff Gomez merely suggests influence by stating Alberto Gomez was working for Mr. Chavez at the time the modified declaration was signed. A suggestion Alberto Gomez may be lying in his most recent declaration is not evidence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiffs do no more than submit the self-serving declaration of Plaintiff Gomez disputing the circumstances of how and when the declaration was signed. (Decl. Gomez, ¶¶ 50-51.) Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence to show Alberto Gomez's latest declaration is not accurate. Plaintiff Gomez merely suggests influence by stating Alberto Gomez was working for Mr. Chavez at the time the modified declaration was signed. A suggestion Alberto Gomez may be lying in his most recent declaration is not evidence.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GOMEZ V PLA-ART INTERNATIONAL INC

Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy was to, inter alia, "kick GOMEZ out of the new company by creating untrue stories about GOMEZ and GR INLAND to turn the GR INLAND employees and clients against GOMEZ, and to fabricate a story to attempt to justify not 'doing the merger'..." (TAC, ¶ 202.) Plaintiffs alleged Gomez was fired on January 23, 2015. (TAC, ¶ 181.) Chavez does not dispute that Defendant San Diego Logistics, Inc. fired Gomez on January 23, 2015.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EEL HOLDINGS LLC VS. MOISES GOMEZ, ET AL.

Gomez also stated that EEL had no option to purchase the property because the lease had become void; · EEL demanded that Gomez return the $108,000 deposit; and · Gomez has failed to respond to EEL’s demand or return the deposit. Gomez demurs to the entire Complaint. II. Standard Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (CCP § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 171     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.