Array
(
)
Search by Keyword:
Start Date:
End Date:
Tip: Wrap text in quotation marks when searching for phrases (e.g. "motion to dismiss").

776 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Contra Costa x
Judge: Treat, Charles S x 
Array
(
)
SELECT * FROM wp_posts WHERE (post_type = 'attachment') AND ID IN (SELECT object_id FROM wp_term_relationships WHERE term_taxonomy_id IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_term_taxonomy WHERE taxonomy = 'wpmf-category' AND parent IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_terms WHERE term_id = 231)) AND term_taxonomy_id IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_term_taxonomy WHERE taxonomy = 'wpmf-category' AND term_taxonomy_id = 326)) AND (true) AND (true) ORDER BY post_title DESC LIMIT 600,50
Array
(
)
2018.7.20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 529
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.20
Excerpt: ...grees, and so the motion is denied. Paragraphs 45‐47 of the complaint allege: An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 12 HEARING DATE: 07/20/18 ‐ 11 ‐ Defendant DCSD with respect to the DCSD's obligations under the Ordinance Code. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the DCSD has an obligation under the Ordinance Code to provide security to Diablo r...
2018.7.20 Demurrer 042
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.20
Excerpt: ...es or can reasonably be construed to allege the following. The plaintiffs and the lead defendant, Gerald Knopoff, are siblings, the children of Jean and Leon Knopoff. When Leon died, the children were left $7 million in a trust. But when the trustee, defendant Gerald Knopoff, distributed the funds, each child received only $140,000. (SAC, ¶ 9.) Gerald told plaintiffs the loss of money in the Trust was “due to bad economy and that he had been n...
2018.7.13 Motion to Strike 299
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ...bstantive basis stated in the FAC for recovery of plaintiff's attorney fees. In opposition plaintiff argues that it may recover fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 because it is pursuing a matter of public interest. Plaintiff does not elaborate on this assertion, however, and there is nothing in the FAC that could support it. Plaintiff's argument is that it is alleging fraud, and fraud is a bad thing, so therefore the allegations are wit...
2018.7.13 Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens 299
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ... Mahajan moves to expunge on the basis of § 405.32, providing for expungement if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim on which the lis pendens rests. “Unlike most other motions, when a motion to expunge is brought, the burden is on the party opposing the motion to show the existence of a real property claim. (See § 405.30.)” (Kirkeby v. Supe...
2018.7.13 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 299
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ...r Estates Inc. joins the motion, but it does not appear in the papers that that entity has any direct ground for a disqualification motion, and it will be disregarded.) The Court must first comment on the chronology of all this. Black and Weston have represented plaintiff in this action since it was first filed in July 2016. Danilovich has been in the case for some time. Yet the topic of disqualification did not come up until new counsel for Dani...
2018.7.13 Motion for Summary Judgment 632
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ...f defendants Kenneth Turnage and Kenneth R. Turnage II General Contractor, Inc. On September 24, 2016, plaintiff participated in an off‐site charity event, as a member of the wiffle ball team formed by his employer, Defendant Turnage. The wiffle ball team consisted of other employees and non‐employees. Plaintiff's participation was optional. The tournament ended at about 4:00 p.m. Later, after stopping home for a shower, plaintiff attended an...
2018.7.13 Motion for Entry of Judgment 889
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ...nder Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. Nor did the subsequent Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, filed in June 2017, provide either any stipulation or any terms of settlement. At present, the case has not been dismissed, and defendant is in default. There is not, however, any judgment under § 664.6 or otherwise, nor any court order adopting or incorporating the terms of any settlement, nor any court document requiring defendant to pay any mone...
2018.7.13 Motion for Default 629
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ...ve service, in this out of status of limitation case.” The Court has no confident idea exactly what defendant thinks she is asking for, or on what basis. As near as the Court can make out, she is again asking for relief from her prior default and the default judgment against her. That was already ruled on, and defendant presents even less semblance of grounds for any such relief now. This motion, whatever it is intended to be, is denied. ...
2018.7.13 Motion for Attorney Fees 119
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ...or Court pursuant to Labor Code § 98.2(a). The notices were initially rejected by the clerk's window because petitioners did not proffer any appeal bonds, as required by § 98.2(b) “[a]s a condition to filing an appeal”. Petitioners sought an ex parte order requiring the clerk to accept the notices of appeal, pointing out that under Code of Civil Procedure § 995.240 they were entitled to seek waiver of the bond requirement upon a showing of...
2018.7.13 Application for Writ of Possession 670
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ... sought in the application. 3. The application is supported by no evidence or proof whatsoever. The standardized form contains no content other than checked boxes, and thus no factual assertions. It states that it relies on the Verified Complaint – but in fact the Complaint is not verified. 4. The unverified Complaint, even if it were under oath, is insufficient to establish a right to recover. Assuming that the application relates to the two v...
2018.7.13 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal 319
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.7.13
Excerpt: ... do not purport to show any such basis for relief. Third, the asserted basis for relief is that the parties settled the case as stated in a settlement agreement attached to the motion – but in fact nothing is attached to the motion, and no such settlement agreement is in the Court's file. Fourth, the dismissal filed by plaintiff in 2015 was absolute and unconditional, with no reservation of jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. T...
2018.6.29 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, for Change of Venue 238
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.29
Excerpt: ... response, plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, dismissing the entire action and all causes of action. The Court accepted the request and entered the dismissal on April 10, 2018. Plaintiff now files a motion to set aside the dismissal. He states no facts in support of this motion, however, nor does he argue any legal basis for his motion beyond quoting the California CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 12 HEARING DATE...
2018.6.29 Demurrer 998
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.29
Excerpt: ... 2018. If he does not do so, the third cause of action will be deemed abandoned and crossdefendants must file and serve answers to the FAXC by August 27. The FAXC's first cause of action is for fraud; the second, for fraudulent concealment; and the third, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The FAXC is lengthy, containing a detailed narrative of Romero's side of the story on this home‐remodeling contractor dispute. His actual CONT...
2018.6.29 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction 570
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.29
Excerpt: ...istricting map by which they argue this could be done, and effectively ask the Court to adopt that map as mandatory. The motion is denied. Plaintiff's Complaint, and the Setting for This Motion Plaintiffs' complaint generally alleges that the District's current at‐large voting structure impermissibly dilutes the votes of racial minorities, namely Latinos and black people. The result of the District's at‐large voting system is that it deprives...
2018.6.29 Motion for Attorney Fees 709
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.29
Excerpt: ...ses of action (and thus as to the complaint as a whole). On still other causes of action the Court denied the motion, but did not view those contentions as frivolous. Having secured a ruling that defendant's anti‐SLAPP motion was frivolous in part, plaintiffs now bring the present motion for attorney fees under subd. (c)(1) of the anti‐SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(c)(1): “If the court finds that a special motion to strik...
2018.6.29 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 083
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.29
Excerpt: ...motion on May 10, 2018, but the parties stipulated to hearing it concurrently with St. Mark Pittsburg's motion. (See Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital, LLC v. Danning, Gill, Diamond & Kollitz (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1301 [“The statutorily mandated minimum notice period for summary judgment may be waived by the parties…”].) The Court addresses both motions in this ruling. The motion of St. Mark Pittsburg is granted to the exte...
2018.6.22 Demurrer 552
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...30 days after service of the Order After Hearing hereon. If he elects not to do so, the case will be dismissed. Defendants' attorney, Thomas Crowell, submitted a declaration showing compliance with the meet and confer requirements in Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41. Plaintiff submitted a declaration stating that he does not recall Crowell calling him on April 11, 2018 to discuss the FAC. The Court accepts Crowell's statement that he discussed t...
2018.6.22 Motion for Summary Judgment 400
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...kground On Monday, January 25, 2016, plaintiff was walking west, on the north sidewalk of Olympic Boulevard in Walnut Creek, California, just west of South Main Street. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) Nos. 2, 3.) As she was approaching the scene of the accident, she noticed a metal pole bent at an angle in her path of travel, approximately 50 feet in front of her. (UMF No. 3; see Ex. 5 to O'Donnell Decl. filed 6/8/18.) She believed she coul...
2018.6.22 Motion for Continuance 171
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...e argument for its relevance, and the Court assumes that the interrogatory responses might be helpful to plaintiff on the summary judgment motion. What plaintiff does not do, however, is to demonstrate any plausible excuse for not having sought this discovery more timely. As Jacobs points out, this is an unusual case in that his summary judgment motion has been in plaintiff's hands since last September. Plaintiff responded to it fully in January ...
2018.6.22 Motion for Attorney Fees 980
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...TE: 06/22/18 ‐ 2 ‐ (2) for defendants to cure the existing default on the mortgage (which defendants were supposed to pay, but on which plaintiff was the obligor); and (3) for defendants, if possible, to arrange to refinance the house or assume the mortgage, so as to relieve plaintiff of any debt obligation as to the property. If defendants did not cure the mortgage default, or if they did not or could not arrange to get plaintiff off the loa...
2018.6.22 Demurrer 570
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...arge voting structure impermissibly dilutes the votes of racial minorities, namely Latinos and blacks. The result of the District's at‐large voting system is that it deprives racial minorities of the opportunity to elect the trustees that comprise the District's five‐member Board. The District's Board governs five cities – Richmond, San Pablo, Hercules, El Cerrito, and Pinole – and eight unincorporated areas. The totality of the circumsta...
2018.6.22 Motion to Compel Answers 319
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...act nothing of the kind was attached or otherwise filed. Defendant does belatedly provide the proof of service now, however, as well as a declaration stating that a notice of motion bearing the date and time was served. In any event, it is apparent that plaintiff has been able to ascertain the date and respond to the motion. Plaintiff has also belatedly served discovery responses, none of which includes any objections. That moots the motion. Defe...
2018.6.22 Demurrer 470
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...of the Order After Hearing hereon. HOLA Preemption Wells first argues that the entire FAC is preempted by the federal Home Owners Loan Act (HOLA), 12 USC §§ 1461 et seq., and its implementing regulation, 12 CFR § 560.2. See generally, e.g., Lopez v. World S&L (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 729. Such preemption is limited to federal savings banks, which Wells admittedly is not. Wells Fargo nevertheless argues that HOLA preemption applies here because t...
2018.6.22 Motion to Amend Complaint 030
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ... of the Court's prior grant of leave to amend. (The Court notes with disapproval that neither side has filed and served an Order After Hearing concerning either of those rulings.) In the meantime, however, the principal statute underlying plaintiffs' claims (Civil Code § 2923.6) ceased to be in force, having reached its sunset date without re‐enactment (at least not under the same section number). At a CMC in January the Court directed the att...
2018.6.22 Motion to Strike 359
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...Dolores Street Community Services (together, “Wells”) when deciding Lillian Larios's motion and the evidence submitted by Larios when deciding Wells' motion. This appears to have been the intent of the defendants – Larios referenced evidence submitted by Wells in her motion, and Wells filed a joinder to Larios' motion. However, this intent was not clearly stated in the notice of motions and the Court wants to avoid any prejudice to Plaintif...
2018.6.22 Motion to Compel Deposition, to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted 422
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.22
Excerpt: ...ill resend (and revise) the mailing, using both reported addresses for Ms. Toy. She is admonished, however, that if she wants to receive the court's mailings, she must see to it that she updates her address in the court's files. For the same reason, the Court is concerned to ensure that the 1390 Market address is a valid address for service of any papers on Ms. Toy. If that is not confirmed, then the present motions would have to be denied for la...
2018.6.15 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal, Enforce Settlement 079
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...er, never filed the settlement agreement itself, or any § 664.6 judgment thereon. Nor did the Notice inform the Court of any of the terms of the settlement, beyond reporting that the date by which a final dismissal of the case would be filed was March 15, 2017. In particular, there is nothing by which the Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Because March 15 came and went with no dismissal filed, the Court sent an OSC why the c...
2018.6.15 Demurrer 140
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...on or before July 15, 2018. Background This case arises out of a failed transaction for Thomas and Hilary Holden to sell 783 Los Palos Manor in Lafayette, California to cross‐defendant William Wahl. The Holdens alleged that the sale fell through after two checks (one for $50,000 and the other for $10,000) that Wahl placed as a deposit into an escrow administered by Fidelity were dishonored for insufficient funds. The CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT...
2018.6.15 Demurrer 200
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ... serve the amended cross‐complaint on or before July 15, 2018. This case arises out of a disagreement over the purchase of a residence in Richmond. The cross‐complaint alleges that cross‐complainant Kingsway located a short‐sale property, available for purchase at $200,000 below market value. Kingsway and Gardner reached agreement in November 2016 to work together to buy the property and resell it. Their written agreements called for Gard...
2018.6.15 Demurrer 550
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...the case in Lines 10‐12). In that case she obtained an attachment as to one of Ng's assets, namely a note and deed of trust executed in Ng's favor by the Kellys, the defendants in this case. (Ms. Kelly is Ng's daughter; Mr. Kelly, his son‐in‐law.) In this action, plaintiff seeks to enforce the Kelly note in her capacity as a judgment creditor or potential judgment creditor of Ng. The timing of all this is complicated by the course of plaint...
2018.6.15 Demurrer 648
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...y 15, 2018. This dispute has been running in various courts for some time. Plaintiff first filed a small‐ claims case in this Court in 2016, alleging (in less detail) her difficulties in working with Seterus. She also filed a case in federal court for violation of a parallel federal statute, and the small‐claims case was removed to federal court under supplemental jurisdiction. In August 2017 the federal court granted summary judgment against...
2018.6.15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 860
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...f this ruling, the Case Management Conference now set for June19 is premature. The CMC is continued to October 31, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. This case arises out of plaintiff's claim that defendants rented her an uninhabitable premises, 1300 Roosevelt Ave., #420, Richmond, California. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to the Fourth Cause of Action, Negligence, and Fifth Cause of Action, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, arguing...
2018.6.15 Motion to Compel Amended Responses, Production of Docs 790
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ... might be (at least part of) Bidsmart's response. There is nothing in the declaration identifying what that page is, though, let alone authenticating it under oath as accurate and complete. On the contrary, the page is presented simply as part of a meet‐andconfer letter. Without more, the Court has no way of reliably knowing what responses Bidsmart made or didn't make, let alone judging whether they are appropriate or not. The Court also notes ...
2018.6.15 Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena 082
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ... the other case were not pending. In this case, Uecker (as liquidating trustee) is suing defendants Ng and Wild Game to collect on a note and guaranty made by defendants in favor of Horwitz. Defendants are defending the case on the theory that the purported note and guaranty were sham transactions intended to conceal Horwitz's alleged equity participation in Wild Game by falsely depicting Horwitz's involvement as a debt. The Court of Appeal has h...
2018.6.15 Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 049
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ... motion was not filed until May 2. Plaintiffs' reply asserts that the 30‐day deadline in the Local Rule is “intended as a deadline for a party to raise objection to the facilitator's recommendation, not the filing of a motion to compel after participation in the program.” 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 t...
2018.6.15 Motion to Deem Admitted Unanswered Requests 890
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...o sanctions are awarded. In the event that defendant has served responses prior to the hearing, no matters will be deemed admitted, but sanctions are awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000. The Court has read defendant's opposition brief, laying out in general terms the reasons why defendant thinks plaintiff should not be suing her. None of that is before the Court on this motion, however, and none of it bears on the present motion. This mo...
2018.6.15 Motion to Strike 550
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...AC until their reply. As best the Court can tell, defendants seek to strike the FAC because it is a sham pleading – by which defendants apparently mean nothing more than that the FAC is defective for the reasons argued in their demurrer. The Court rules on the demurrer in Line 20. The motion to strike adds nothing. CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 12 HEARING DATE: 06/15/18 ‐ 34 ‐ 22. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC17‐015...
2018.6.15 Motion to Strike Answer 690
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...2 ‐ Code of Civil Procedure § 436(b) permits the court to grant, or deny, a motion to strike if the challenged pleading is not in conformity with an order of the court. However, It is the policy of the law to favor, wherever possible, a hearing on the merits, and appellate courts are much more disposed to affirm an order where the result is to compel a trial upon the merits than they are when the judgment by default is allowed to stand and it ...
2018.6.15 Motion to Strike Claim 342
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ... claim for punitive damages from Plaintiff's complaint. Following that Order, on February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) that, by comparison to the original complaint, substantially increases the factual allegations supporting a prayer for punitive damages in this case. Plaintiff's FAC alleges that Plaintiff, then a 5th or 6th grade student at the School, was subjected to disability discrimination after he slipped...
2018.6.15 Motion to Strike or Tax Costs 279
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.15
Excerpt: ...denied in all other respects. The Court starts with the observation that this motion represents a failure to meet and confer. There is no formal requirement to do so in this setting, but prudent counsel on both sides would have given it more of a try before proceeding with motion practice. Probably the parties would have had to litigate at least the § 998 issue (absent a compromise of the issue, which was certainly a possibility). But a couple o...
2018.6.8 Motion for Summary Judgment 795
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.8
Excerpt: ...Disputed Material Fact Nos. 10, 16, 17, 26 and Plaintiff's' Additional Fact Nos. 36, 40, 42‐47.) In their Opposition, plaintiffs state they are “withdrawing and dismissing, without prejudice, as to Defendant Scott Clare,” the first, second, third, fourth, and seventh causes of action. No dismissal has been filed, however. The court therefore grants summary adjudication as to those causes of action as to defendant Scott Clare. Clare has made...
2018.6.8 Motion for Summary Adjudication 790
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.8
Excerpt: ...they complained about encroachments on their easement. (Disputed Material Fact Nos. 21, 31, 39; Additional Fact Nos. 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 30(2), 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.) (A numbering problem exists in the Coneys' Separate Statement of Additional Facts, with some numbers being repeated two or three times. The number 30(2) above refers to the second occurrence of the number 30.) Background The central issue on...
2018.6.8 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 389
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.8
Excerpt: ...ed to comply with all the requirements in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324. The parties should comply with this rule, as well as all Rules of Court, at all times. There is “a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations]…” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, leave to amend can be denied where there is “‘ine...
2018.6.8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 460
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.8
Excerpt: .... The matter was continued a second time so that Defendant could respond to Plaintiffs' unauthorized supplemental opposition. Defendant failed to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(f). Tables of authorities and contents are generally useful (and required in memoranda over 10 pages) and would have been especially useful given Defendant's oversized brief. The Sequential Litigations Between These Parties Palma I: Palma sued Sabhlok f...
2018.6.8 Demurrer 660
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.8
Excerpt: ... of habitability, assets a lengthy list of alleged unhealthy or unacceptable conditions in the building. These allegations have previously been made in two prior litigations between the same two parties. Merriouns asserted the same list of defects in her answer to the landlord's unlawful detainer case. She also asserted uninhabitability as her cause of action in a small claims case against the landlord. Both of those cases went to trial, and in b...
2018.6.8 Demurrer 249
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.8
Excerpt: ...wn and operate a number of Pizza Hut restaurants. The present lawsuit is an insurance coverage dispute, concerning coverage for two employment lawsuits brought against plaintiffs. The Oregel suit was filed in this County in 2012 against Pacpizza. It asserted class‐action claims for alleged failures to reimburse employees' employment‐related expenses, in violation of Labor Code § 2802. It also included derivative causes of action under the UC...
2018.6.1 Motion to Vacate Default 430
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.1
Excerpt: ...laint against Hertz, alleging that she had purchased insurance from Hertz. The cross‐ complaint asserted claims for bad‐faith denial and indemnification. Nowhere in the crosscomplaint, however, did Kuney state any amount for the compensatory or punitive damages sought. Nor did she serve any statement of damages. Because the cross‐complaint was basically one for indemnification, it might be argued that Kuney could not know the amount of her ...
2018.6.1 Motion to Strike 212
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.1
Excerpt: ...ding.” Section 436 (b) permits the court to “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” Section 437(a) provides that “[t]he grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” As plaintiff tacitly concedes, there is no legal bas...
2018.6.1 Motion for Terminating Sanctions, for Monetary Sanctions 429
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.1
Excerpt: ...erous motions to compel discovery, with awards of sanctions. Plaintiffs have not complied with the Court's orders, nor have they paid the sanctions. They have simply ceased to respond. CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 12 HEARING DATE: 06/01/18 ‐ 18 ‐ This is to the obvious prejudice of defendants, who have not been able to conduct meaningful discovery in the case. Plaintiffs have not responded to the present motion...
2018.6.1 Motion for New Trial 050
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2018.6.1
Excerpt: ...are denied. Liability of Ruggio In Special Verdict 1, the jury was asked whether each of Johnson and Ruggio were negligent. The jury answered “yes” as to both. In Special Verdict 2, the jury was asked whether each defendant's negligence “was a substantial factor in causing harm to [plaintiff]”. The jury answered “yes” as to defendant Johnson, but “no” as to defendant Ruggio. Plaintiff's principal argument is that the jury erred in...

776 Results

Per page

Pages