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

2530 Results

Location: San Mateo 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 = 242))) AND (true) AND (true) ORDER BY post_title DESC LIMIT 2050,50
Array
(
)
2019.9.20 Motion for Protective Order 123
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.20
Excerpt: ...d the deposition of Mercado in her individual capacity. Mercado previously appeared for deposition after Defendant designated her as Defendant's person most qualified to testify for Defendant. Plaintiff is not precluded from taking Mercado's deposition in her individual capacity under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610(c)(1). Defendant now seeks a protective order as to further deposition of Mercado pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure secti...
2019.9.19 Motion for Summary Judgment 382
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.19
Excerpt: ... other common count claims for: (1) money had and received, (2) for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, (3) for money lent, and (4) for money paid out. (See Complaint, Second Cause of Action for Common Counts, ¶¶ CC‐1(b)(1), (3), (4) and (5).) Plaintiff fails to address these claims, and therefore has not met its initial burden of proving these claims such that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further, summary adjud...
2019.9.19 Motion for Attorney's Fees 084
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.19
Excerpt: ...rney's fees. The complaint has not been dismissed as to Defendant; no judgment has been entered by which “neither plaintiff nor defendant” obtained any relief; no judgment has been entered by which Plaintiff has not recovered any relief against Defendant. (See Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 1032, subd. (a)(4).) The case of Profit Concepts Management, Inc. v. Griffith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 950 is inapplicable. In that case, the defendant was deemed...
2019.9.19 Demurrer 789
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.19
Excerpt: ...� 15610.30 is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e). The TAC does not allege PSI directly engaged in financial abuse, rather, it alleges PSI “assisted” Defendant Khalid in committing financial abuse by failing to provide Plaintiff Riley with “mandated” counseling services, and by failing to conduct sufficient due diligence to confirm the Trust's proper Trustee, and to confirm whether Khalid was Riley's attorney‐in�...
2019.9.18 Motion for Summary Judgment 383
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.18
Excerpt: ... § 437c(p)(1).) Plaintiff's motion only addresses the common count claims for open book account and account stated, but the Complaint also alleges other common count claims for: (1) money had and received, (2) for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, (3) for money lent, and (4) for money paid out. (See Complaint, Second Cause of Action for Common Counts, ¶¶ CC‐1(b)(1), (3), (4) and (5).) Plaintiff fails to address these claims, a...
2019.9.17 Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 743
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.9.17
Excerpt: ...t aside a default under § 473(b) “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted …”). To the extent Defendant seeks relief under § 473(d), the moving papers provide no persuasive argument or authority indicating the Judgment is somehow “void.” Further, and as independent grounds for denying the motion, it lacks sufficient evidentiary support. ...
2019.9.17 Demurrer 507
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.9.17
Excerpt: ...FS LUIS B. CABRERA AND NORMA CABRERA (“PLAINTIFFS”). TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., and JPMorgan Case Bank, N.A.'s demurrer to Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., and JPMorgan Case Bank, N.A. are barred by the doctrine of ...
2019.9.16 Motion to Quash Service of Summons 483
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.9.16
Excerpt: ...e of the evidence that “minimum contacts” exist between defendant and the forum state to justify the imposition of personal jurisdiction. (Mihlon v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 703, 710; Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232.) Here, Plaintiffs Jeffrey C. Poetsch and JC Poetsch Advisors, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have not established that the court has either general or specific jurisdiction over Defendants....
2019.9.13 Motion to Compel Further Responses 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ...endants' requests for admission Nos. 3‐8 from Plaintiff Carol Hoy ask her to admit that she created notes relating to (1) William Hoy's medical care, (2) this lawsuit, and (3) William Hoy's deposition, and that she subsequently destroyed those notes. Plaintiffs contend that the requests are “fundamentally unfair.” However, Plaintiffs have provided no pertinent authority supporting the claim that the requests are unfair. In determining wheth...
2019.9.13 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 646
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ...dgment or adjudication, the court considers all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, and views such evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843‐856. Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion are normally resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Id. As to the 10‐17‐18 First Amended Complaint's (F...
2019.9.13 Motion to Confirm Settlement in Good Faith 321
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ... de‐published. (See Opposing P&A at 7:2 (citation to depublished opinion in Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (review granted; opinion vacated).) Defendant Chang's motion to confirm settlement in good faith is GRANTED. The disputed Tech‐Bilt factor is the rough approximation of plaintiff's total recovery and settlor's proportionate liability. The party opposing the good faith determination has the burden of establishing the lack of good faith. ...
2019.9.13 Motion to Release Bond 475
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ...nlawful detainer action filed against him, which the court granted through February 16, 2018 conditioned upon Moore's payment of monthly rent of $6,300.00 during the stay. (Ibid.) Moore paid the $6,300.00 monthly rent in December 2017 and January 2018, which is the amount he now wants released. Staying the unlawful detainer action is in the nature of an injunction, and a bond may be required. (The Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord‐Tenant...
2019.9.11 Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Default Judgment 108
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.11
Excerpt: ... the face of the record that the judgment should not have been entered; however, a judgment valid on its face but void for improper service is governed by analogy to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 and therefore relief in the same action must be sought no later than 2 years after entry of the default judgment. (See Rogers v Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1121‐ 1122.) Defendant contends here that the judgment is void because he was ...
2019.9.11 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings 073
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.11
Excerpt: ...Purchase Agreement. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the arbitration. Defendants have established the existence of an arbitration agreement, and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the agreement under CCP § 1281.2. Plaintiffs' first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are jointly asserted against Defendants Lurline and Jaojoco. Each of the causes of action arises from the same transaction governed by t...
2019.9.2 Motion to Compel Arbitration 782
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.2
Excerpt: ...aintiff's complaint seeks payment for work performed at that project. Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint is a dispute that relates to the Agreement. Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the Agreement is procedrually unconscionable. Defendant sent the Agreement to Plaintiff in the evening of October 21, 2018. That same evening, Plaintiff responded “the contract is good and will sign it.” (Email from Gaddis to Lee, September 21, 2018, Exhibit 3 to...
2019.8.30 Motion for Summary Judgment 426
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.30
Excerpt: ..., but also “prejudgment interest in the amount and at the rate provided by law.” (See Complaint, Prayer, 2:21.) Plaintiff presents no evidence as to the amount of interest sought. Further, Plaintiff has not presented admissible evidence to establish all the elements of an account stated, including that Defendant JBJ Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) owed Plaintiff money from previous financial transactions and that Plaintiff and Defendant agre...
2019.8.29 Motion to Strike Complaint 501
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.29
Excerpt: ...ant moves to strike the SAC on the ground that Plaintiffs are no longer represented by counsel, and cannot represent themselves in propria persona because Plaintiffs are an LLC and trustees of a trust. A court may strike 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. (C.C.P. § 436(b).) Defendant fails to show that the SAC was “not drawn or filed" in ...
2019.8.28 Demurrer 274
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ... DENIED as to the Notice of Rescission because it was not provided with the request. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of the Complaint in this action is GRANTED. (2) Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Rescission is OVERRULED. Defendants demur to the First Cause of Action based on failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on the following grounds: (a) Plaintiff accepted the benefits of the contract and theref...
2019.8.28 Motion to Compel Further Responses 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ...a HIPAA‐compliant protective order which protects the identity of Patient No. 2 in satisfaction of 45 CFR Section 164.512(e)(1)(v) within ten days of this order. Within 5 days of issuance of the protective order, Defendant shall provide verified responses to Request for Production nos. 65 – 68 ("RFP") and produce documents redacting any personally identifying information of Patient No. 2. Plaintiff William Hoy ("Plaintiff") ha...
2019.8.28 Motion to Reopen Discovery, to Issue Terminating Sanctions 110
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ...igence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the l...
2019.8.28 Request for Sanctions 391
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ..., and Aug. 28, 2019, is GRANTED‐IN‐PART, as set forth below. Plaintiff filed 12 separate motions to compel further responses to written discovery requests—4 motions against each of Defendants Autobahn, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. The 12 motions were set for hearing on Aug. 13, Aug. 14, and Aug. 28, 2019. Defendants then served further responses to the discovery requests before the Aug. 13‐14 hearings. Accordingly...
2019.8.26 Motion to Appoint Arbitrator and Compel Arbitration 760
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.26
Excerpt: ...etition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate the controversy, the court shall order petitioner and respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, unless it finds that certain exceptions apply. (See C.C.P. § 1281.2.) Thus, the court must first order the dispute to arbitr...
2019.8.22 Motion to Compel Further Responses 548
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.22
Excerpt: ...NDANTS' ATTORNEY 0F RECORD JENNY L1 AND DENNIS FAORO IN THE SUM 0F $1,280 TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Plaintiff HaiboYu (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Defendant Aim Consolutions, Inc. (“ACI”) to Further Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set One, and Defendant Hailin Li (“Li”) to Further Respond to Form Interrogatories, is ruled on as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compe...
2019.8.21 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal 089
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.21
Excerpt: ...not have authority to stipulate to dismissal of the cause of action. This claim is supported by counsel's declaration, which states that (1) counsel mistakenly believed she had authority to enter the stipulation to dismiss, (2) Plaintiff was not aware of the stipulation, and (3) Plaintiff did not grant authority to enter into the stipulation. [Graves Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4] A misunderstanding between an attorney and client furnishes a proper and suffic...
2019.8.19 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 353
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.19
Excerpt: ...n is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Collateral Estoppel As indicated in Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp., 224 Cal. App. 4th 125, 141 (2014) and other authorities, the preclusive effect of a judgment in a UD action is limited. This is because the only issues typically litigated in a UD action are the plaintiff's right to possession, and the defendant's defenses to the plaintiff's claim of possession. In the prior UD action, the jury determi...
2019.8.19 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 571
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.19
Excerpt: ... the Ceccatos' supplemental briefing. This motion was continued from July 18, 2019 for supplemental briefing by the Ceccatos. The Ceccatos assert that Bonis should be disqualified as counsel for the Montgomerys due to a conflict of interest based on concurrent representation and successive representation. The court requested further briefing regarding both concurrent and successive representation, as well as briefing on the issue of whether the m...
2019.8.16 Motion for Summary Judgment 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...ary, the Complaint expressly states that the breaches were by “Defendants,” an allegation that does implicate RPM. The premise of this motion is that RPM cannot be liable for breach of the licensing agreement because RPM had no contractual obligations under the licensing agreement. The motion argues that RPM “assigned Sierra” to Rust‐Oleum, and Rust‐Oleum continued to perform Sierra's payment obligations under the license agreement. S...
2019.8.16 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...hen the patent expires. (Brulotte v. Thys Co (1964) 379 U.S. 29, 33‐34.) Royalties may continue to be collected past the patent expiration if the royalties represent other than patent rights (hybrid agreement). (Kimble v. Marvel Entm't, LLC (2015) ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2401.) The License Agreement granted patent rights, “technology rights,” and “Improvements,” each of which is specifically defined. RUST‐OLEUM acknowledges that ...
2019.8.16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 264
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...ct, conversion and common counts.” Notably, however, Plaintiff's complaint did not assert causes of action for breach of contract or conversion. Nonetheless, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action for account stated and money lent, and the answer admits those facts. The answer, however, does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment. As a result, the motion is granted with leave for Defendant to amend ...
2019.8.15 Motion for Reconsideration or Order Expunging Lis Pendens, for Attorneys' Fees 581
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.15
Excerpt: ...to Defendant's demurrer, there is no requirement that a claim for breach of implied covenant must plead the plaintiff's performance of the contract. The authority cited in the Demurrer (Habitat Tr. For Wildlife v. City of Rancho Cucamonga) pertains to claims for breach of contract, not breach of implied covenant. B. Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation) Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to Phuong T. Nguyen, DDS, Inc. The c...
2019.8.13 Motion for Summary of Judgment 786
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.13
Excerpt: ...n dated February 6, 1992. Plaintiff has not identified a proper basis for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437c. No triable issue of material fact exists as to the dates of record notice of Defendant's interest in the Property and Defendan...
2019.8.13 Motion to File Amended Complaint 326
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.13
Excerpt: ...3 months old. Trial is set for 9‐9‐19. There have been no trial continuances. Although Plaintiff seeks leave to amend relatively late in the case, the evidence before the Court does not demonstrate any prejudice compelling enough to justify denying leave to amend. The Opposition does not argue that granting leave would affect the 9‐9‐19 trial date. Indeed, the proposed FAC adds no new causes of action; all 9 causes of action were already ...
2019.8.12 Motion for Summary Adjudication 637
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.12
Excerpt: ...a cause of action if that party has proved each element of a cause of action to entitle the party to judgment on the cause of action. (C.C.P. § 437c(p)(1).) Once the plaintiff has met its burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) Plaintiff presents evidence to establish all of the elements of the First Cause of Action for Br...
2019.8.9 Motion to Seal 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.9
Excerpt: ...of the subject documents at the time the motion is made. (See CRC Rule 2.551(b)(4).) No documents are lodged under seal with this motion or RPM's motion for summary judgment. The motion fails to comply with the requirement that redacted public versions of the documents be filed. (Id. Rule 2.551(b)(5).) No redacted versions are filed. The court cannot determine whether the proposed redactions are sufficiently narrow. (See Rule 2.550(d) (sealing mu...
2019.8.9 Motion to Quash Service of Summons, to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment 452
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.9
Excerpt: .... However, Defendant does not dispute that she was personally served with the summons and complaint on May 22, 2019. Accordingly, the court finds there are no grounds for granting Defendant's motion to quash service. Alternatively, Defendant seeks to set aside the default and default judgment on the basis of mistake and excusable neglect. According to Defendant, her failure to respond was due to the fact that she has a brain injury and cannot rea...
2019.8.8 Motion to Consolidate Cases and Injunction of Unlawful Detainer 585
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...tion to exercise a lease extension was fraudulently misrepresented to him – and because it would promote judicial economy. He further contends that consolidation would “avoid the potential for irreparable injury.” According to Mr. Nguyen, “If the business is summarily evicted, at the least, both Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Tran will lose their only source of income and health insurance, and suffer irreparable harm.” [MPA, p.12] Mr. Nguyen relies...
2019.8.8 Motion to Consolidate Cases and for Injunction of Unlawful Detainer 502
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...�� namely, whether the nature of his option to exercise a lease extension was fraudulently misrepresented to him – and because it would promote judicial economy. He further contends that consolidation would “avoid the potential for irreparable injury.” According to Mr. Nguyen, “If the business is summarily evicted, at the least, both Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Tran will lose their only source of income and health insurance, and suffer irreparable...
2019.8.8 Demurrer 501
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...ur to them. However, California requires that affirmative defenses be pleaded with ultimate facts. Demurrer is sustained because the affirmative defenses plead only legal theories, but not any ultimate facts. Defendants argue that the facts are set forth in the Cross‐complaint. Even if that were true, the allegations belong in the Answer. The case of Schaefer v. State Bar of California (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 739 does not support Defendants. Schaefer...
2019.8.6 Motion for Attorney Fees 664
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.6
Excerpt: ...f $25,737, plus a 2.0 multiplier, plus $1,206.15 in costs/expenses. The Court declines to apply a loadstar enhancement/multiplier. The Court finds no basis to conclude the case was complex or novel. It appears to have been a fairly routine consumer warranty/lemon law case. Complexity is judged in part by whether the case involved: 1) numerous pre‐trial motions raising novel issues; (2) a large number of witnesses and documents; (3) a large numb...
2019.8.6 Motion to Set Aside Default, Judgment 182
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.6
Excerpt: ...ts proposed answer within 5 days of this order. Defendant Adams claims that he sent the summons and complaint to an unnamed attorney in Santa Rosa. Mr. Adams indicates that he was too busy to follow up on his instructions that the attorney file an answer to the complaint. Based on the facts as set forth in Mr. Adams' declaration, it is questionable whether Mr. Adams exercised reasonable diligence in responding to the complaint. The court finds, h...
2019.8.5 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 342
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.5
Excerpt: ...ach of Express Warranty Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to assert a cause of action for breach of express warranty because Plaintiff has not alleged that the “latent defect” in the timing chain system manifested itself during the five‐year warranty period. According to Defendant, Plaintiff has alleged “no manifestation of the purported defect in the timing chain.” [MPA, p.4] Construing the complaint liberally, however, Plaintiff...
2019.8.2 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 950
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.2
Excerpt: ...ases on their merits if possible. Here, Plaintiffs have already had multiple opportunities to draft and file a Complaint asserting a valid cause of action, beginning with their Complaint filed in federal district court, which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Nonetheless, because Plaintiffs may be able to assert a valid cause(s) of action based on their allegation of unpaid wages (whether in the form of a breach of contract c...
2019.8.1 Motion to Unseal Court Records and Terminate Protective Orders 188
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.1
Excerpt: ...equested relief must be sought from the judge or court that entered the original sealing orders, under the general rule that “The power of one judge to vacate an order duly made by another judge is limited.” Greene v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1583, 1588 (Ct. App. 1990). The People have provided no authority indicating that this court can unseal records ordered to be sealed by another judge or court. Further, as indicated i...
2019.8.1 Demurrer 581 (2)
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.1
Excerpt: ...or a Plaintiff to demur to them. However, California law requires that affirmative defenses be pleaded with ultimate facts. Demurrer is sustained because the affirmative defenses plead on legal theories, but not any ultimate facts. Defendants cite cases that recognize a fine distinction between proper ultimate facts and improper legal conclusions; such pleading must be read in context with other allegations. (See cases cited at Defendants' Opposi...
2019.7.9 Motion to Strike 234
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ... FAC on December 19, 2018. It filed the present demurrer and motion to strike on May 17, after the time to file a responsive pleading expired. Accordingly, Cornerstone's motion is untimely. Cornerstone contends that “this motion is indisputably timely.” However, Cornerstone presents no argument or evidence in support of this position. Relation Back As noted in the court's ruling on the related demurrer, Cornerstone has provided no authority i...
2019.7.9 Demurrer 763
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ...act is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. This claim alleges WF breached ¶28 of the Deed of Trust (DOT), which Plaintiff contends states that Plaintiff may reinstate the loan up to five business days prior to the foreclosure sale. First, ¶28 of the DOT does not say that. And even if it did, the FAC still would not allege a breach because, as with the original Complaint, nowhere does the FAC allege that Plaintiff ever offered to reinstate the loan m...
2019.7.9 Demurrer 234
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ...19, 2018. It filed the present demurrer and motion to strike on May 17, after the time to file a responsive pleading expired. Accordingly, Cornerstone's motion is untimely. Cornerstone contends that there is “no timeliness issue” with respect to the present motions. However, no argument or evidence is submitted in support of this position. Facts Sufficient to State a Claim Cornerstone's demurrer fails on the merits for the same reasons set fo...
2019.7.8 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment 927
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.8
Excerpt: ...ion and has not provided a proposed answer as required by CCP §§ 473 and 473.5. The language of those statutes is mandatory, in that they require that an application for relief from default “shall” be accompanied by a proposed answer. Although Plaintiff appears to be willing to stipulate to set aside the entry of default, the court is not empowered to grant the requested relief due to Defendant's failure to satisfy the mandatory requirement...
2019.7.5 Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement 038
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...fore this court. Accordingly, it's not clear whether CCP § 877.6 provides GE with authority to file an application for a good faith settlement determination. As set forth in CCP § 877.6, that statute applies to “a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co‐obligors.” Because Defendant's complaint has not alleged that GE is a joint tortfeasor, it is not clear how this scenario fits ...
2019.7.5 Motion to Augment Expert Witness List 038
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...r expert and sent a witness disclosure statement to Plaintiff. [Gumear Decl, ¶¶ 5, 8, 9] Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and, accordingly, has not provided any reason why he would be prejudiced by augmentation of Defendant's expert witness list. The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses and has determined that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in maintaining his actio...

2530 Results

Per page

Pages