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

1-25 of 265 results

PARR INVESTMENT COMPANY OF SANTA MONICA VS WILLIAM G. WELLS

between Design Services, Research Planning and Planning Technology, on the one hand, and attorneys Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Paul Malingagio and Paul Seeley, on the other hand.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2018

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, A LIMITED ET AL

Notice And Motion For Preliminary Injunction Against Deft Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Llp Set for hearing on Thursday, June 25, 2009, line 7, PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Motion For Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP. Off Calendar, Notice of removal to bankruptcy Court filed by defendant. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2009

BR MARKETING, INC. V. RUSKEY

Based on Defendant’s (Chad Ruskey) Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Disqualify Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP (filed on 8-7-19), Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP (filed on 5-23-19), scheduled for hearing on 8-20-19, is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP VS HELEN HAYWOOD ET AL

sheppard, mullin, richter & hampton llp vs. helen haywood , et al.; BC693978, July 26, 2018 [tentative] order re: plaintiff’s REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT HELEN HAYWOOD Plaintiff Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Plaintiff”) requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defendant Helen Haywood. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $65,559.84, which includes interest and costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Cross-Complaint DEFENDANT SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP Motion For Leave To File Cross-Complaint IS CONTINUED TO MARCH 9, 2006 PER AMENDED NOTICE. (302/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2006

  • Judge

    JOHN J. CONWAY

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

ARIANDNES THREAD USA INC VS LI

TENTATIVE RULING The unopposed motions to withdraw filed by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, by Robert Weber, are granted. Counsel is relieved as attorney of record for plaintiff/cross-defendant Ariades Thread (USA), and cross-defendants Jia Hu, Minqin Tang, and Immerex, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARIANDNES THREAD USA INC VS LI

TENTATIVE RULING The unopposed motions to withdraw filed by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, by Robert Weber, are granted. Counsel is relieved as attorney of record for plaintiff/cross-defendant Ariades Thread (USA), and cross-defendants Jia Hu, Minqin Tang, and Immerex, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HANCE, JOHN VS. SUPER STORE INDUSTRIES

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59. Moreover, Mr. Waisbren’s declaration says that failure to disclose was an omission, not intentional, and that evidence is uncontroverted.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2020

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP VS. ALPHAVILLE DESIGN, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

Ntc Of Petition To Compel Arbitration And Apponit Arbitrator Set for hearing on Tuesday, December 20, 2011, Line 20, PETITIONER SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Ntc Of Petition To Compel Arbitration And Apponit Arbitrator. The petition to compel arbitration is granted. The petition was unopposed. The Court is not appointing an arbitrator. If the parties do not reach agreement on the arbitrator, a party or parties may petition the Court pursuant to Civil Procedure Code ? 1281.6.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2011

HARGROVE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION

The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defendant San Diego County Credit Union ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1 - 4, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP., is CONTINUED to Friday March 6, 2020 at 9:00 am in

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HARGROVE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION

The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defendant San Diego County Credit Union ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1 - 4, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP., is CONTINUED to Friday March 6, 2020 at 9:00 am in

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RICHARD A MARSHACK VS SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION MOVING PARTY: Defendant Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Richard A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2017

COX V. FREA

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658.) The defendant must establish that the “core injury-producing conduct upon which the plaintiff’s claim is premised” is protected speech. (Hylton v. Frank E. Rogozienski, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 2364, 1272.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HARGROVE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION

The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees, pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defendant San Diego County Credit Union ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1 - 4, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP., will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DLD IRVINE COVE, LLC VS. IRVINE COVE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 676. Thus, even if moving party had met its initial burden to show protected activity, the motion would still fail as to the probability of prevailing on the merits. The demurrer by defendant Irvine Cove Community Association to the fourth cause of action for fraud is sustained, with leave to amend, on grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP 430.10(e).) (CACI 1902.)

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2017

HARGROVE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION

The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees, pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defendant San Diego County Credit Union ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1 - 4, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP., will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HARGROVE VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION

The Motion (ROA # 25) of Plaintiff Carleton Hargrove ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees, pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, for an order compelling Defendant San Diego County Credit Union ("Defendant") to provide further responses to Plaintiff s Special Interrogatories (Set One) Nos. 1 - 4, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP., will be HEARD.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JANE FENG VS. DAVID YANG ET AL

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 685. See Second Amended Complaint, 6, 7.) It is undisputed that Mr. Chen was retained by Plaintiffs and sent the aforementioned letters Defendant Yang and his counsel. Plaintiffs cannot claim ignorance of the actions of their counsel. Defendant Yang's objections are sustained.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2014

BRYANT V. KELLEY

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 676.) The issuance of an alternative writ did not by itself meet petitioner’s burden. “The issuance of the writ is merely the method by which the respondents can be brought into court. . . . the fact that the court grants the writ is not a final finding of the petition's sufficiency. (McPheeters v. Bd. Of Medical Examiners (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 709, 716.) Attorney fees may be sought by separate motion. (See, e.g., Mallard v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

RICK OLIVER TREVINO, ET AL. VS STACY HELEN TREVINO, ET AL.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658 is instructive. There, the First District held that although the attorney’s conduct was couched in terms of a fiduciary breach, protected conduct included petitioning activities, such as opposing the SEC’s efforts to appoint a receiver, threatening the SEC with bankruptcy, and refusing to allow the individual client to testify. In opposition, Plaintiff cites Sprengel v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SMARTMED, INC. V. FIRSTCHOICE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

Both attorneys will be associated with California attorney James Burgess, of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP. They also include his address and phone number. Mr. Burgess is an active member in good standing of the California State Bar. He states that he has paid fees of $100 ($50 per application) to the State Bar of California, and sent notice to the State Bar of the applications.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. SCOTT SMITH ET AL

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2013) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 680.) The demurrer to the fifth affirmative defense is sustained without leave to amend because the alleged agreement does not relate to Plaintiff's UFTA claim which asserts that Defendant fraudulently transferred the domain names to avoid enforcement of the judgment entered against him.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2016

PACIFIC BUSINESS CAPITAL CORPORATION VS MARY CAROLE MCDONELL

Moving Party: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, counsel of record for defendants Sean Carroll and Mackenzie Carroll. Resp. Party: None The Motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 5/12/17 against defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of guaranty; (3) claim and delivery; (4) fraud; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) theft; (7) foreclosure of deed of trust; and (8) injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PACIFIC BUSINESS CAPITAL CORPORATION VS MARY CAROLE MCDONELL

SUBJECT: Motions to be relieved as counsel Moving Party: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, counsel of record for defendants Mary Carole McDonnell and Longneedle Entertainment Inc. Resp. Party: None If counsel provides sufficient facts during an in camera hearing to support withdrawal, the Court will GRANT the motions.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMALIA GARCIA-OCAMPO, ET AL. VS WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 59, 72.) III. Discussion “‘[T]he party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any defense . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Nielsen Contracting, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1106.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.