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

226-250 of 251 results

WENDY J IVERSON VS SANTA FE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL INC. ETAL

The FAC provides that Plaintiff now has to repay and reimburse Medi-Cal for funds paid to Community, Ali and Defendant out of her settlement with former defendant Santa Fe Convalescent Hospital. (FAC ¶ 163). The allegations provide that under Medi-Cal’s contract with Defendant, Plaintiff was statutorily entitled to the benefits of the Medi-Cal coverage (treatment of her ailments).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

CHUNG WAH CHAN ET AL VS HRACHYA AVETISYAN ET AL

An OSC re Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for February 7, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ELIRAN NOUMA VS MASERATI NORTH AMERICA INC ET AL

If the parties do not agree to mediation, the court will address the issue of Mandatory Settlement Conference at the Further Status Conference. Mediation must be completed by the date stated. Note 3: Post-Mediation/Further Case Management Conference. The parties must return to Dept. 46 for Further Case Management Conference on the date set for Post-Mediation/Further Case Management Conference in Dept. 46 even if mediation process is not started or, if started, remains incomplete.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2017

SARGON ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Res judicata does not immunize a party from liability for future conduct occurring after the date of a settlement or judgment. (Eichman v. Fotomat Corp. (9th Cir. 1985) 759 F.2d 1434, 1438-1439.) Failure to State a Claim Lewis Brisbois further argues that Sargon’s claim for equitable contribution fails for failure to state a claim on the basis that Lewis Brisbois had no obligation to contribute to Sargon. (Motion at p. 5.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

EDWIN TAK-WING CHAN VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact of law is appropriate if it will promote the ends of justice, considering the following: · the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to litigation · convenience of parties, witnesses and counsel · relative development of the actions and work product of counsel · efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower · the calendar of the courts · the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings · likelihood of settlement

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2018

IRENE O'CAMPO VS EASTLAND SHOPPING CENTER LLC ET AL

Cole further prays that Bank “be required to defend, indemnify, protect, and save harmless Cross-Complainant herein from any loss, damage, costs, judgment, settlement, and expense” related to or connected with the Plaintiff’s claims. Id., at 10:4-7 [emphasis added].3). As Bank argues, “[i]n ruling on a summary judgment motion, the issues which are material are limited to the allegations of the complaint.” Eriksson v. Nunnink, (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 826, 848.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2018

RICK RYAN ET AL VS LUSTRE-CAL ET AL

Subject: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Moving Party: Defendant Diversey, Inc.. Resp. Party: None The Court takes the Motion OFF-CALENDAR. The moving papers were not timely filed or served. The proof of service says the papers were served by e-mail on 11/30/16 – 16 court days before the hearing. However, service by e-mail extends the notice period by two court days. (See CCP sec. 1010.6(a)(4).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2016

RICK RYAN ET AL VS LUSTRE-CAL ET AL

Subject: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Moving Party: Defendant Diversey, Inc. Resp. Party: None The Court takes the Motion OFF-CALENDAR. The moving papers were not timely filed or served. The proof of service says the papers were served by e-mail on 11/30/16 – 16 court days before the hearing. However, service by e-mail extends the notice period by two court days. (See CCP sec. 1010.6(a)(4).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2016

THE ESTATE OF KATHRYN MARY MAR ET AL VS BEVERLY HILLS MEDICA

The One Action Rule provides that if an heir is not included in the original wrongful death action, the heir may not subsequently bring an independent action against the tortfeasor, unless the tortfeasor had knowledge of the existence of the heir at the time of the settlement. (Id. at 216–217.) This is the case even if the plaintiff was aware of the existence of another heir. (Ibid.) The wrongfully omitted heir's remedy is against the heir who brought the wrongful death action. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA VS DILLON LARADO MONTA BRUNO ET AL

On 7/19/17, the court granted Cross-Defendants Paccar Inc.’s (erroneously sued and served as Paccar Inc. dba Kenworth Truck Company) (“Paccar”) and Kenworth Truck Company, an unincorporated division of Paccar Inc.’s (erroneously sued as Kenworth Truck Company) (“KTC”) motion for determination of good faith settlement, as well as plaintiff’s motion for joinder of parties as defendants in the lead case. The Final Status Conference is set for 8/13/18. A jury trial is set for 8/21/18. Case No.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MYRNA KAWAKITA VS GEORGE TASHJIAN MD ET AL

On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unconditional Notice of Settlement of Entire Case. On March 5, 2019, Norms filed a “Notice of Acceptance of Cross-Defendant George Tashjian, M.D.’s Statutory Offer to Compromise.” On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed the entire action of all parties and all causes of action, with prejudice; that day, Norms dismissed its cross-complaint, with prejudice. Case No.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KARA DIZON VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant contends that plaintiff’s disappointment with pretrial settlement offer and the subsequent breakdown of communication with her attorney is not good cause to continue the trial date.There have been two prior continuances.The court finds that plaintiff has shown good cause.The motion is therefore GRANTED.The court orders that trial is continued from April 16, 2018 to October 16, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 93.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

KARA DIZON VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant contends that plaintiff’s disappointment with pretrial settlement offer and the subsequent breakdown of communication with her attorney is not good cause to continue the trial date.There have been two prior continuances.The court finds that plaintiff has shown good cause.The motion is therefore GRANTED.The court orders that trial is continued from April 16, 2018 to October 16, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 93.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

DAVID SOLOMON VS SPINAL SOLUTIONS INC ET AL

This case will never move forward expeditiously toward settlement or a trial without an early mediation. The Court will take up with counsel again at the motion hearing the urgent need for a mediation in this case, or the status of whatever mediation effort is already underway. Case Number: BC663725 Hearing Date: April 18, 2018 Dept: 58 Hearing Date: April 18, 2018 Calendar No: 10 Case Name: Pas v. G&S Off Price, Inc., et al.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2018

JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA VS DILLON LARADO MONTA BRUNO ET AL

On 7/19/17, the court granted Cross-Defendants Paccar Inc.’s (erroneously sued and served as Paccar Inc. dba Kenworth Truck Company) (“Paccar”) and Kenworth Truck Company, an unincorporated division of Paccar Inc.’s (erroneously sued as Kenworth Truck Company) (“KTC”) motion for determination of good faith settlement, as well as plaintiff’s motion for joinder of parties as defendants in the lead case. The Final Status Conference is set for 8/13/18. A jury trial is set for 8/21/18. Case No.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC ET AL VS DAS CORPORATION ET AL

App. 4th 1388, 1392; (2) plaintiff’s counsel displayed a satisfactory level of skill in presenting this case at trial and counsel involved in pretrial litigation displayed a high level of skill in marshalling the evidence and positioning the case for settlement and eventually trial; and (3) plaintiff’s counsel accepted and worked on this matter on a contingency basis.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

OPTIONAL CAPITAL INC ET AL VS DAS CORPORATION ET AL

That order found that Das’ actions regarding its settlement and obtaining of the funds in the Swiss account did not warrant finding Das in contempt of court. The motion is denied on this ground as well.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2019

SERJ ARAMIAN VS WALTERS RESIDENCE HOMES INC ET AL

In Colonial Life, the California Supreme Court addressed an action for damages against an insurance company alleging unfair claims settlement practices, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, in which the trial court permitted plaintiff to discover the names, addresses and records of other insureds whose claims were negotiated by the same claims adjuster who handled plaintiff’s claims.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARY PATENT ET AL VS OLATUNJI BANDELE D V M ET AL

On September 12, 2018, the Court granted the application of Kim and Central Orange County Emergency Animal Hospital to approve their good faith settlement with Plaintiffs. Those Defendants were subsequently dismissed on October 3, 2018. Defendants Bandele and LA Central Animal Hospital (hereinafter “Defendants”) filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike on September 14, 2018. On October 19, 2018, they filed a notice of non-opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike. DEMURRER ANALYSIS: A.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

GARY PATENT ET AL VS OLATUNJI BANDELE D V M ET AL

On September 12, 2018, the Court granted the application of Kim and Central Orange County Emergency Animal Hospital to approve their good faith settlement with Plaintiffs. Those Defendants were subsequently dismissed on October 3, 2018. Defendants Bandele and LA Central Animal Hospital (hereinafter “Defendants”) filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike on September 14, 2018. On October 19, 2018, they filed a notice of non-opposition to the demurrer and motion to strike. DEMURRER ANALYSIS: A.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

WENDY J IVERSON VS SANTA FE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL INC. ETAL

The FAC provides that Plaintiff now has to repay and reimburse Medi-Cal for funds paid to Defendants out of her settlement with former defendant Santa Fe Convalescent Hospital. (FAC ¶ 163). The allegations provide that under Medi-Cal’s contract with Defendant, Plaintiff was statutorily entitled to the benefits of the Medi-Cal coverage (treatment of her ailments).

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

RAUL TREJO VS NBC UNIVERSAL THEME PARKS ET AL

The two entered into a settlement and pedestrian crossing agreement, pursuant to which they agreed to construct a pedestrian bridge on their properties. Universal did not meaningfully participate in the details of the project. LACMTA hired Griffith as the general contractor on the project. Griffith contracted with Danny’s for structural steel erection on the project. Griffith contracted with CSI in connection with scaffolding on the project. Danny’s hired Plaintiff to perform iron work.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

CINDY KIN MI TSUI VS MICHAEL KIN WING CHUI

Only where the dismissal leaves some doubt regarding the defendant's liability, as where the dismissal is part of a negotiated settlement, will the dismissal not be deemed a termination favorable to the defendant.”); see also Garcia v. Lacey (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 402, 406 (“A litigation is finally determined adversely to a plaintiff if he does not win the action or proceeding he began, including cases that are voluntarily dismissed by a plaintiff.”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ADAM MORALES VS OWENS CORNING ET AL

Defendants also contend that a continuance will promote judicial economy and efficiency by allowing parties to enter into mediation which would avoid the costs involved in expert discovery and trial preparation until and unless settlement cannot be reached. Plaintiff has stipulated to the proposed trial date. The motion is GRANTED because moving party has shown good cause.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2018

CARLOS MADRID VS CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN PROPERTY INSURANCE ET

8/28/17 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding MADRID vs. CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN, etc., et al. (BC593925) Counsel for plaintiff: Steven Zelig (WLA, etc.) Counsel for defendant California Fair Plan (CFPA): Elise Klein; Celia Moutes-Lee (Lewis, etc.) Other counsel: Omitted. DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR S...

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2017

  « first    1 ... 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.