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

PACIFIC COAST AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. VS. NOE RAMIREZ, ET AL.

Noe Ramirez, et al. Case No.: TC029155 Matter on calendar for: Default judgment hearing CCP 585 Notes: Plaintiff Pacific Coast Automotive Group, Inc. leased two vehicles to defendant Noe Ramirez. Each vehicle was a separate contract and Ramirez operated under a different entity in each contract. The first vehicle was leased on January 12, 2011 to Ramirez and Ramirez United, Inc. and $17,556.96 remains due and owing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KAREN LATOURELL V. ADALBERTO GARCIA RAMIREZ, ET AL.

(This court’s records for a traffic citation issued to Ramirez on June 2, 2015, Case No. 25613TH, list the address for Ramirez as 1316 Azalea Street, Apt. C, in Oxnard.) Velasquez made contact with the tenant of Apt. B, who did not know Ramirez. He left business cards at the other locations. On February 10, he contacted the occupant of Apt. C, who had moved into the apartment two months prior and did not know Ramirez.

  • Hearing

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY VS EDWARD T. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

Ramirez and Mary Ramirez are the record owners of the property. (Motion, Delgadillo Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has served Defendants Edward T. Ramirez, Ronnie Ramirez, Edward Ramirez, Jr., Mary S. Ramirez, Rita Williams, and Rachel Daniel. However, there are no indications that Defendant The Heirs or Devisees of Mary S. Ramirez has been served with the motion. In fact, an order for service of the summons and complaint on The Heirs or Devisees of Mary S.

  • Hearing

JOHN RD DOE ET AL VS HAYNES FAMILY OF PROGRAMS INC ET AL

(BC700918) MOTION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING THE TAKING OF DEPOSITION OF A PRISONER, VERONICA RAMIREZ Moving Parties: Plaintiffs John RD Doe and Jane GA Doe Respondent: Defendant Veronica Ramirez POS: See below[1] The minor plaintiff alleges he was subjected to sexual abuse by defendant Veronica Ramirez (“Ramirez”) in her capacity as a teacher’s aide at Haynes Family of Programs, Inc. (“Haynes”) in the fall semester of 2017.

  • Hearing

RUBEN NICK RAMIREZ VS UNEMPLOYMENT OF APPEALS BOARD

Ramirez referred to this process as a “run around.” AR 71. Ramirez testified that he was only recently informed that the appeals process should not take this long. Id. The ALJ went over the Claim Notes with Ramirez. AR 73. The Claim Notes show that Ramirez called the appeals office twice to learn about the appeal process and indicated that he would file an appeal but that he never actually did so. AR 73, 108. Ramirez claims that he did file an appeal. AR 73.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VALENCIA V. RAMIREZ

Motion by Defendants Carlos Ramirez and Margarita R. Ramirez to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint: Defendants Carlos Ramirez and Margarita R.

  • Hearing

SAMUEL GALEANA V. ANNEL RAMIREZ

Declaration of Simon Ramirez (represented by Michael Pina) He does not know the exact date of when he discovered the paternity case that Samuel Galeana filed against Annel Ramirez, his wife; since his separation from Annel Ramirez, he has continued to be in children's lives.

  • Hearing

NATIVIDAD RAMIREZ VS. SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ET AL

Ramirez further presents evidence that she often conducted work business at the restaurant. (Suhr dec. par. 8; Ramirez dec. par. 19). Paragraphs 22-23 of Ms. Ramirez's declaration show that she worked 40 hours per week. Ms. Ramirez creates a triable issue whether she was replaced by younger workers. Ms. Ramirez was 59 years old at the time of her termination. (Ramirez dec. pars. 3 and 33.) The people that replaced her were in their 30s and 40s (Bacon Confidential Dec., Ex. FF (Plaintiff's Fact 96).).

  • Hearing

PACIFIC COAST AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. VS. NOE RAMIREZ, ET AL.

Noe Ramirez, et al. Case #: TC029155 Matter on calendar for: Default judgment CCP 585 Notes: Plaintiff Pacific Coast Automotive Group, Inc. leased two vehicles to defendant Noe Ramirez. Each vehicle was a separate contract; Ramirez operated under a different entity in each contract. The first vehicle was leased on January 12, 2011 to Ramirez and Ramirez United, Inc.; $17,556.96 remains due and owing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

UNION BANK NA VS BERTHA PLEITES ET AL

The trustee�s sale was held by the trustee of a deed of trust in which Jacinto Ramirez and Catalina Ramirez (Ramirez defendants) were trustors. (Complaint, exhibit A.) On January 15, 2014, the Ramirez defendants were served with a 90-day written notice to vacate and deliver up possession of the Property to Union Bank. (Complaint, � 8 & exhibit B.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JESSICA RAMIREZ ET AL VS GHP MANAGEMENT INC

Jessica ramirez, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. ghp management, inc., et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC 634765 Hearing Date: August 6, 2018 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

JACOB RAMIREZ VS WESTERN NATIONAL CONTRACTORS INC ET AL

Ramirez asks for leave to amend the Complaint, stating that the operative Complaint was filed before Ramirez knew “about the relationship of the insurance companies to the safety conditions on the job site . . . .” (Opposition at p. 2.) Ramirez argues that through discovery, he has learned that the insurance companies dictated “the safety conditions on the job site.” (Ibid.) Ramirez argues that he has sought additional discovery, but that HCC and Axis have filed a motion to quash the relevant subpoenas.

  • Hearing

KELLY CISNEROS VS AEROTEK, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff attacks the admissibility of the Ramirez Declaration and attached exhibits submitted by Defendants to show that she e-signed the Agreement and thereby consented to the same. Horacio Ramirez (Ramirez) is Aerotek’s Employee Relations Manager. (Ramirez Decl. ¶ 1.) Ramirez declares that he handles a broad range of employee relations matters for Aerotek’s western territory as part of his job duties and responsibilities. (Ramirez Decl. ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EFRAIN C. RAMIREZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

In support of the fraudulent inducement-concealment cause of action, Ramirez alleges that NNA had knowledge of the defective transmission, actively concealed that information from the public, failed to disclose that information to Ramirez prior to his purchase of the Subject Vehicle, and intended to deceive Ramirez in an effort to sell the Subject Vehicle at a maximum price. (Compl., ¶¶ 144-147.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARIO DE LA TORRE ET AL VS CANDIDO RAMIREZ ET AL

Ramirez was in default at that time, he would have been expected to include Mr. Ramirez in this motion. A September 6, 2018 motion to set aside default did not include Mr. Ramirez. As with the August 15 motion, if Attorney Davis believed Mr. Ramirez was in default at that time, he would have been expected to include Mr. Ramirez in this motion. A December 27, 2018 declaration by Plaintiffs’ Attorney Brent Kramer again states that Mr. Ramirez had not yet been served. (Kramer Decl. ¶ 6.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

PABLO RAMIREZ VS NISSAN MOTOR CO LTD ET AL

Here, Nissan is not asking Ramirez to produce a document that is already in existence. Rather, Nissan asks Ramirez to create a new document by signing the release form provided by Nissan. Nissan does not cite to, nor is the Court aware of, any authority that would allow the Court it to compel Ramirez to sign the release form. The proper procedure would have been for Nissan to serve a subpoena on T-Mobile, while giving notice to Ramirez.

  • Hearing

RAMIREZ V. MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP

On 6-15-18, the plaintiff Douglas Ramirez and defendant Mercury Casualty Company filed a joint stipulation to grant plaintiff leave to amend to add Nicholas Ramirez, a minor, as a plaintiff, and to continue trial to 2-19-19. On 7-12-18, plaintiff Douglas Ramirez’s application for appointment as guardian ad litem for Nicholas Ramirez was granted. The court’s docket does not reflect that any first amended complaint was filed that would add Nicholas Ramirez as a plaintiff.

  • Hearing

JESSICA RAMIREZ ET AL VS GHP MANAGEMENT INC

(“BRS”) served Plaintiff Jessica Ramirez (“Ramirez”) with Request for Production of Documents, Set No. 3. (Richards Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. A.) As of the filing of the instant motion, BRS has not received a response to the discovery request. (Richards Decl., ¶ 3.) BRS now moves to compel responses from Ramirez to the Request for Production of Documents, Set No. 3. No opposition to these motions was filed.

  • Hearing

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS RAMIREZ

The court rules as follows on the motion as to Defendants Bark Adoptions and Ramirez. A review of the court file shows that Defendant Bark Adoptions filed an opposition on September 18, 2020. Defendant Jasmin Ramirez filed an opposition on September 21, 2020. Both of these oppositions were untimely. CCP § 1005(b). Plaintiffs object to the oppositions as untimely. Neither Defendant Bark Adoptions nor Defendant Ramirez provides an explanation for their untimely filings.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EFRAIN C. RAMIREZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

In support of the fraudulent inducement-concealment cause of action, Ramirez alleges that NNA had knowledge of the defective transmission, actively concealed that information from the public, failed to disclose that information to Ramirez prior to his purchase of the Subject Vehicle, and intended to deceive Ramirez in an effort to sell the Subject Vehicle at a maximum price. (FAC, ¶¶ 148-152.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JESSICA RAMIREZ ET AL VS GHP MANAGEMENT INC

Jessica ramirez, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. ghp management, inc., et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC 634765 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: A. DEFENDANT BRS ROOFING, INC.’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JESSICA RAMIREZ TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO: a. FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE b. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE B.

  • Hearing

JACOB RAMIREZ VS WESTERN NATIONAL CONTRACTORS INC ET AL

Ramirez asks for leave to amend the Complaint, stating that the operative Complaint was filed before Ramirez knew “about the relationship of the insurance companies to the safety conditions on the job site . . . .” (Opposition at p. 2.) Ramirez argues that through discovery, he has learned that the insurance companies dictated “the safety conditions on the job site.” (Ibid.) Ramirez argues that he has sought additional discovery, but that HCC and Axis have filed a motion to quash the relevant subpoenas.

  • Hearing

RAMIREZ VS. RAMIREZ

Moving parties Daniel Ramirez and Jennifer Magallanes to give notice as to all rulings herein.

  • Hearing

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE VS ALVAREZ, ANA GALVEZ

The Complaint is still pending against defendant Steve Ramirez. The Stipulated Judgment as to defendant Anna Galvez Alvarez cannot be entered until Plaintiff either dismisses defendant Steve Ramirez from this case or waits until the matter against defendant Steve Ramirez is otherwise disposed of. If Plaintiff elects to dismiss defendant Steve Ramirez, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Judgment Against Defendant Anna Galvez Alvarez would be GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BAKER HUGHES WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Ramirez will diligently investigate and evaluate the claims of all Ramirez class members, including those with OCS claims who are also Hockison putative class members, since Ramirez also worked on the OCS. Since a mediation of Ramirez will not include any Hockison class members who are not also Ramirez class members, their claims will remain for Hockison to represent, assuming Newton remains good law.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 259     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.