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

1-25 of 4,056 results

15-00874885 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VS SURF CITY BEACH COTTAGES LP *RELATED TO PACIFIC MOBILE PARK VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

According to the plain language of the statute, a suit for money or damages cannot be brought against “a public entity” without a pre-litigation claim. Neither Paragon nor Rhoad are a “public entity.” Without any authority to the contrary, the Court must interpret the statute by its plain meaning. Paragon to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2018

RAUL GARCIA VS. RKJD INVESTMEN

That is not satisfactory. 4) Where the notice informs the employee of the amount he or she will get, it should immediately describe (in plain English) the release and any other consideration moving from the putative class member to defendant, as well as (in plain English) the possible tax liability of the recipient of the money. 5) The notice does not tell the putative class members that Mr. Garcia is getting $6,000 for settling a separate claim. Was that claim asserted in this action?

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

BARBER VS ANGIES TOWING

The response shall be in plain and simple language and sent to attorney Caryn Brottman Sanders by no later than October 18, 2019. The request for sanctions is granted pursuant to CCP § 2023.010 in the amount of $2,510. The sanctions shall be paid by defendant Angies Towing to plaintiff Jeffrey Phillip Barber on or before October 27, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

FOX VS TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA

The responses shall be in plain and simple language and sent to attorney Frederic J. Milberg, Milberg & De Phillips, PC, 2163 Newcastle Avenue, Suite 200, Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007 by no later than October 21, 2019. Defendant Toyota Motor Sales is ordered to provide a further response to document demand number 2, 4-5, 7-12, 17 and 26.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ELSKEN VS L'OCCITANE, INC.

Where the notice informs the employee of the amount he or she will get, it should immediately describe (in plain English) the release and any other consideration moving from the putative class member to defendant, as well as (in plain English) the possible tax liability of the recipient of the money. 11. The parties have not provided a proposed form of order. 12. The schedule seems a bit tight considering there may be a need to re-mail some of the notices.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

NATHAN TODD DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS WELLS FARGO BANK NA

Moreover, under a plain language construction of Cal. Labor Code § 246(i) and the PAGA carve-out, at Cal. Labor Code § 2699(g)(2), the Court concludes that the Legislature intended to omit HWHFA violations from PAGA enforcement. The plain language of Labor Code § 246(i) indicates “the employer shall provide written notice” of paid sick leave available either on the itemized wage statement or a separate writing. The plain language of the 2004 amendment to PAGA, at Cal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2018

VICTOR TUNG VS. AMI QI ET AL

1689's plain language requiring "connivance." = (501/RBU)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2016

CPI CHICO BENEFICIARY LLC ET AL VS HK DELUXE LLC

On Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, neither party suggests that extrinsic evidence is required to construe the plain meaning of Section 4 of the Consent and Non-Disturbance (CND) Agreement. The Court has reviewed the CND Agreement and finds that the terms of the agreement are unambiguous. Based on a plain reading of the CND Agreement, the Court finds that the parties did not intend "material amendment" of the sublease to include termination thereof.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

HABIBI VS. WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING

WPH provides no authority for this proposition, and the plain language of § 928 does not say that tolling is only permitted if the statute of limitations otherwise would have run. In fact, nowhere does § 928 contain any reference whatsoever to the limitations period needing to have run before its tolling provision becomes applicable. Quite the contrary; it says that any applicable statutes of limitations shall be tolled.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

GALASINAO VS. HILLSFORD HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION

“The statute's plain meaning controls the court's interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the plain language of a statute is unambiguous, no court need, or should, go beyond that pure expression of legislative intent.” (White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572, quoting Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1998) 19 Cal.4th 851, 861.) Here, the language is plain. It permits a board to “declare vacant the office of a director who has been… convicted of a felony.” (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2017

LOEFFLER VS. RSM 8, LLC

Loeffler notes correctly that the plain language of the arbitrator’s award itself suggests that the arbitrator did rule on this issue as follows: “Pursuant to arbitrator’s discretion and the Home Builder’s Limited Warranty, each party to bear its own witness fees, costs, and attorney’s fees.” (Rader Decl. at Ex. B -- 12/21/15 arbitrator’s award attached to judgment.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2017

IN RE THE JESS V BAXTER TRUST, AUGUST 13, 2007 AS AMENDED

To make §17200 petitions and objections understandable to lay beneficiaries, they can be alleged in plain English and can be objected to in plain English, without the need for stilted forms of traditional civil pleading and practice. Petitioners filed two petitions, under separate case numbers, involving the same parties but separate trust instruments. Both cases are consolidated for all purposes into 2014-00448271 by the court, sua sponte. Mr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2014

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

LACKEY VS. GREGG DRILLING AND

Where the notice informs the employee of the amount he or she will get, it should immediately describe (in plain English) the release and any other consideration moving from the putative class member to defendant, as well as (in plain English) the possible tax liability of the recipient of the money. Please note, the Court will not give tentative approval to payment of (i) $10,000 to the named plaintiff or (ii) $ 70,000 as attorney fees, or (iii) a specific amount of actual costs.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

ESTATE OF MICHAEL BURCK

The transfer to Nadine fails, because plain language in the residual clause states a contrary intention Even if the Court does not rely on the interpretation above, the transfer to Nadine would “fail” under Probate Code section 21110.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

SEMEYON GOFMAN VS. WHITTIER ENTERPRISE LLC, ET AL

North State Grocery ((2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 484), Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney's fees under the Labor Code because the plain language of the statutes requires a determination of liability. However, the plain language of Govt. Code sec. 12965(b) does not require such a showing. Under Govt. Code sec. 12965(b), the Court is given discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2014

IN RE THE JESS V. BAXTER IRREVOCABLE TRUST, APRIL 9 2013

To make §17200 petitions and objections understandable to lay beneficiaries, they can be alleged in plain English and can be objected to in plain English, without the need for stilted forms of traditional civil pleading and practice. Petitioners filed two petitions, under separate case numbers, involving the same parties but separate trust instruments. Both cases are consolidated for all purposes into 2014-00448271 by the court, sua sponte. Mr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2014

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

R&T INVESTMENTS INC VS. KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP USA

The plain language of section 1032 establishes that a prevailing party includes "the party with a net monetary recovery," and "a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant." (Textron Financial Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1075.) The plain language of section 1032(a)(4) establishes R&T Investments as the prevailing party against Richard Perrin, and Kawasaki Motors as the prevailing party against R&T Motors.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2015

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

P STANDARD GENERAL LTD ET AL VS DOV CHARNEY

The court orders further briefing on the legal issue of whether or not actions by Judgment Debtor in the fraudulent conveyance action renders that action to be not a “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law,” or to state the issue conversely, whether the existence of that action is a “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law” irrespective of the actions of any party in that litigation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALISTS OF SOUTHERN VS BENNETT, DUSK

As a general rule, the plain text of a statute governs, as it is a guide to legislative intent. Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 672. Here, the text of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits a CCP § 425.16 motion to strike in this case. In limited civil cases, motions to strike are allowed only on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations in the complaint. CCP § 92(d).

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2016

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KIRKER VS LICO

The plain language of the Rule is contrary; it states that the 30-day deadline is for filing and service of “a formal Discovery Motion”. That means either a motion to compel, or a motion for protective order. The procedure of “objections to a recommendation” is not one called for by the program’s rules. This motion to compel is a “formal Discovery Motion”, and it is untimely under the plain language of the Rule.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2018

SALONCENTRIC INC VS FESTIVAL ENCINITAS PARTNERS LLC

The verified supplemental response shall state, in plain and simple language: (1) whether plaintiff has any documents responsive to the request; (2) whether plaintiff has or will produce all such documents; (3) whether plaintiff is withholding from production any responsive documents. The Court finds that request number 13 is overbroad. Plaintiff is not required to provide a further supplemental response to number 13.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FONTANA VS. ATILANO

The verified supplemental response shall state, in plain and simple language: (1) whether Ana Atilano, Juan Atilano or Austin Benton Glen have any documents responsive to the request; (2) whether Ana Atilano, Juan Atilano or Austin Benton Glen have or will produce all such documents; (3) whether Ana Atilano, Juan Atilano or Austin Benton Glen are withholding from production any responsive documents.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

TELLEZ VS. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

The verified supplemental response shall state, in plain and simple language: (1) whether plaintiff has any documents responsive to the request; (2) whether plaintiff has or will produce all such documents; (3) whether plaintiff is withholding from production any responsive documents. Defendant's requests for sanctions are granted in the amount of $1,170 ($525 per motion as the motions are unopposed in addition to filing fees of $120).

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

VAN HORN VS VIJH-FAUTIER

The verified response shall state, in plain and simple language: (1) whether Defendant has any documents responsive to the request; (2) whether Defendant has or will produce all such documents; (3) whether Defendant is withholding from production any responsive documents. All responsive documents shall be sent to Attorney Christopher A. Villasenor at Law Offices of Christopher A. Villasenor, 12396 World Trade Drive, Suite 211, San Diego, California 92128 by no later than March 16, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PAMATZ VS. LAURA OGDEN AS TRUSTEE OF THE OGDEN FAMILY TRUST

The plain language of the arbitration agreement provides that: B. DISPUTES EXCLUDED FROM ARBITRATION - The following claims, disputes or disagreements under this Lease are expressly excluded from the arbitration procedures set forth herein: 2. "(b) [Claims that] are primarily founded upon matters of fraud, willful misconduct, bad faith or any other allegations of tortious action, and seek the award of punitive or exemplary damages..." (See Plaintiff's Exhibit B.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2017

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 163     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.