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 2300,50
Array
(
)
2019.12.27 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 967
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2019.12.27
Excerpt: ... an open book account and an account stated. However, Plaintiff also asserts claims for goods sold and delivered and credit extended on account. The alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to the claim based on an open book account. Plaintiff has met its burden to show that there is no defense to this cause of action. CCP §437c(p)(1). See Undisputed Material Facts 1‐8; LaRosa Declaration ¶¶5 ‐8, 10‐12 and Exs. A‐C. Th...
2019.12.27 Demurrer 365
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2019.12.27
Excerpt: ...cted with the requisite intent to cause damage to Plaintiff. See CACI No. 1320. Defendant Michael Solomon's Demurrer to the “motor vehicle” negligence cause of action is OVERRULED. Plaintiff has asserted factual allegations in the Complaint sufficient to constitute a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. Though the allegations are contained in an attachment labeled “general negligence,” Plaintiff's form Complaint asserts only inte...
2019.12.23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 712
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2019.12.23
Excerpt: ...tered a dismissal he signed, which requested dismissal of the ‘Entire action of all parties and all causes of action.” The filing of a dismissal has immediate effect, rendering subsequent proceedings void. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Humboldt Loaders, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 921, 931. The dismissal has caused confusion since only Xie signed it. It may be that this dismissal was meant to dismiss plaintiff Wang's claims, but there is no evidenc...
2019.12.23 Demurrer 210
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2019.12.23
Excerpt: ...ny cause of action and also cannot be determined at the demurrer stage. The Court has jurisdiction over the case because Business & Professions Code section 6200 et seq. does not divest the Court of jurisdiction to hear the case. Business & Professions Code section 6201 provides: “[A]n attorney shall forward a written notice to the client prior to or at the time of service of summons or claim in an action against the client.... The written noti...
2019.12.20 Motion for Terminating Sanctions 778
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.20
Excerpt: ...ovember 12, 2019, ruling, Defendant previously moved to set aside the default and default judgment entered against her on March 2, 2009 on the basis that she was never served with the summons and complaint. Judge Brown denied the motion without prejudice on September 23, 2019. Defendant then moved to set aside the renewal of judgment on the basis that she did not receive notice of the Notice of Renewal filed on March 19, 2018. Defendant made her ...
2019.12.18 Motion for Entry of Dismissal 442
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ...proposed order, submitted with its moving papers on April 23, did not specify whether the action is dismissed with or without prejudice. The court's tentative ruling granting Defendant's motion also did not state that the matter was dismissed with prejudice. Defendant points to the following portion of the transcript from the July 8 hearing on the motion to dismiss or stay as support for its request that the matter be dismissed with prejudice: TH...
2019.12.17 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 620
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.17
Excerpt: ...t (1) Plaintiff is limited to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation benefits, and that under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689, Plaintiff is precluded from recovering against KENMARK, the hirer of a contractor, and (2) the evidence does not support the “retained control” exception to Privette. Privette does not apply to this case because Plaintiff's employer, CBC, is not the contractor whose negligence is alleged to hav...
2019.12.17 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 620 (2)
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.17
Excerpt: ... motion to preclude a res ipsa loquitur instruction lacks merit. (The purpose behind this portion of the motion is unclear because even if res ipsa loquitur does not apply, that does not dispose of the entire cause of action.) “There can be no doubt that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to a factual situation involving injury resulting from the collapse of a scaffold.” (Biondini v. Amship Corp. (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 751, 767.) R...
2019.12.17 Motion to Set Aside Default, Vacate Judgment 108
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.17
Excerpt: ...dure section 473 where it is clear from 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 tha...
2019.12.9 Application for Right to Attach Order and for Issuance of Writ of Attachment 598
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.9
Excerpt: ...$6,217,681. Ms. Dolch has not provided declarations or documentary evidence supporting the probable validity of her underlying claim or the amounts sought in the application. Rather, she relies on her verified § 850 Petition to support the application. According to the § 850 Petition, In December 2016, Angelique escorted Nellie to a Charles Schwab office and, without Bob's knowledge or consent, transferred more than $1.5 million of community pr...
2019.12.9 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 548
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.9
Excerpt: ...causes of action in Plaintiff's Complaint. Additionally, triable issues of material fact exist as to whether a union member who receives a discharge letter may always remain on the job (SSUMF 12/14; O'Mahony Decl. for Defendant, vs. Bourn Decl. Exhs. J, K and Chinn Depo. pp. 29:9‐30:2 and Woulfe Depo. pp. 40:8‐24 for Plaintiff); whether UPS Labor Relations pursued Barefield's termination for the June 15, 2016 incident (SSUMF 19; Woulfe Decl. ...
2019.12.6 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 136
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.6
Excerpt: ...on alleging a violation of Civ. Code § 2923.6 (“dual‐tracking”), the Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. The parties agree that the version of § 2923.6 in effect in 2017 barred a foreclosure sale while a complete loan modification application was “pending.” Ocwen argues there was no pending application at the time of the 7‐20‐17 sale. Ocwen points to documentary evidence showing that from Nov. 2016 to May 2017, Ocwen denied...
2019.12.5 Demurrer 602
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...ourt found that “it was the intention of the parties to the contract between [attorney] Dunnigan and Max Orloff that said Max Orloff should not have the right to settle or dismiss or compromise the aforementioned actions without the consent of his attorney, and that, if said Orloff did so dismiss said actions, he was required to pay as a penalty therefor the sum of $1,000 to his said attorney.” Id., at 747. The trial court found this provisio...
2019.12.3 Motion to Strike 385
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.3
Excerpt: ...n in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(b)(1).) In ruling on a motion to strike under this section, the co...
2019.12.3 Demurrer 581
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.3
Excerpt: ...roc. § 430.10(e). As an initial matter, Code Civ. Proc. § 1005 requires service of Opposition briefs either by personal service or by means of next‐day delivery at least 9 court days prior to the hearing. In this case, it appears Plaintiffs did not serve their Opposition brief at all. There is no Proof of Service on file. WF's counsel apparently became aware of the Opposition by reviewing the Court's docket online. Plaintiffs' violation of §...
2019.12.2 Demurrer 123
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.2
Excerpt: ...ry duties.” According to Defendant, “The gravamen of NAS's cause of action is BAES's alleged violation of the Liquor License Statutes.” MPA, p.11. As a result, Defendant contends Plaintiff's claim is based “upon a liability created by statute,” and the applicable statute of limitations is three years pursuant to CCP § 338. Plaintiff does not dispute that the question of which statute of limitations applies is determined by looking to t...
2019.2.28 Motion for Summary Adjudication 285
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.28
Excerpt: ...18, 19 and 20. As to the Declaration of Gilg, the Court overrules Chantler's Objection 1 and sustains Objection 2. The Court exercises its discretion to not rule on Yeganeh's Objections since none of the matter to which Yeganeh objects was necessary or material to the Court's analysis of the present motion. (See Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 437c, subd. (q).) B. Issue 1 (Sixth Cause of Action) Plaintiff Chantler's claim for action on a judgment is tim...
2019.2.28 Motion to Strike 633
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.28
Excerpt: ...olves the objections to be raised in the motion. §435.5(a)(3) requires the moving party to file and serve with the motion a declaration stating either the means by which the moving party met and conferred and that they did not reach an agreement or that the party who filed the pleading that is the subject of the motion failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. The declaration of Gopal ...
2019.2.27 Motion to Change Venue 909
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...multiple counties, not just where the defendant(s) reside. In breach of contract cases, venue is proper, inter alia, where the contract work is to be performed. Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a). On a motion to change venue, the moving party bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary to justify a change of venue. Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1666. The Complaint here alleges the contract was formed in, and perfo...
2019.2.27 Motion to Set Aside Default Dismissal 879
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...to bring the instant motion. Moreover, the motion is untimely pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b), and the Court has no jurisdiction to consider it. Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36. Even if Mr. Thompson had standing and the motion was timely, it would be denied for lack of merit. Mr. Thompson provides no explanation as to what “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” resulted in entry of the Court's July...
2019.2.27 Motion to Compel Further Responses 974
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...nterrogatories (Set One) within 14 days of this order. Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED. Allstate's opposition does not respond to the arguments presented in the moving papers, and it is not supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. Allstate's response is also deficient because the attached exhibits are not what they are purported to be in its memorandum in opposition. In any case, Defendant has demonstrated it is ent...
2019.2.27 Motion to Quash Civil Subpoena or for Protective Order 019
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...ive Order, filed 2‐13‐19, which includes a request for attorney's fees, is GRANTED‐IN‐PART and DENIEDIN‐PART, as set forth below. Plaintiff has not filed any “Opposition” per se, but on 2‐19‐19, filed and served (by regular mail) a document stating Plaintiff “Objects” to the DA's Motion to Quash. Even if this document had been formatted and entitled properly, Plaintiff served it by regular mail, which violates Code Civ. Proc...
2019.2.26 Motion to Strike 282
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.26
Excerpt: ...Plaintiff leave to amend one cause of action. Plaintiff then filed a TAC five days after the statutory deadline for filing an amended pleading had expired. Under the circumstances, including the absence of any compelling showing of prejudice, the Court will exercise its discretion and accept Plaintiff's late‐filed TAC. § 473(a)(1). To the extent the County contends the Court lacks discretion to do so, the Court disagrees. Harlan v. Department ...
2019.2.26 Motion to Vacate 233
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.26
Excerpt: ...t retained at the time the default was entered cannot be the proximate cause of the entry of default under 473(b).” In that case, the defendants' counsel was not contacted until after default was entered on June 4. Although counsel was retained in August, counsel failed to move to set aside the default before judgment was entered in September. The court concluded that counsel's conduct was not the proximate cause of entry of default because he ...
2019.2.26 Motion to File Amended Complaint 701
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.26
Excerpt: ...and Bonnie Rodemeyer (“Plaintiffs”) to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants Professional Computing Solutions, Inc. dba Silicon Segway and Jim Heldberg (“Defendants”) ask that this motion be denied for failure to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a). While Plaintiffs did not state what allegations are proposed to be deleted and amended, by page, paragraph and line number, Plaintiff...
2019.2.25 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Monetary Sanctions 199
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.25
Excerpt: ...de full and complete responses within 14 days of this order. To the extent Newsweek has already provided the information sought, it may respond accordingly. Structure asserts that Newsweek has waived objections for failure to respond to the discovery requests by October 2. The court agrees. With respect to this issue, however, the court notes that Structure refused to grant any extension for responding to its discovery requests. Further, during t...
2019.2.22 Motion for Charging Order of Interests in LLCs 927
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...d on “the judgment debtor” and “all members” of the LLC in which the judgment debtor purportedly owns an interest. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 708.320(a).) The Proof of Service does not show that this motion was served on Judgment Debtor METAMINING, INC., or on any members of Spiro Mining, LLC, or Coal Creek, LLC. It shows service on the LLCs, but the statute requires service on the LLCs' “members.” This defect in service was pointed out i...
2019.2.22 Motion for Summary Adjudication 285
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...laintiff's objection to Defendant's purported attempt to file a moving Memorandum of Points and Authorities of excessive length by manipulating typeface size and line spacing. (Opp. P&A at 1 and n.1). The Court also notes that Plaintiff's extensive use of footnotes brings her Opposing brief to a word‐count nearly identical to that of Defendant. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to Issues 1, 2, and 3. A. Issue 1 – Damages 1. The...
2019.2.22 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment, Enter Another Judgment 251
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...x months. Second, defendant has not provided a proposed responsive pleading as required by the statute. Finally, defendant has not offered evidence to support a finding that the default was entered as a result of her mistake, surprise, inadvertence of excusable neglect. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling ...
2019.2.21 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 647
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.21
Excerpt: ...for breach of contract and negligence cannot be established, and Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of showing the existence of a triable issue of material fact. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Calvillo‐Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 735. Moving and opposing papers in a summary judgment motion must be supported by admissible evidence consisting of “affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, a...
2019.2.19 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award 876
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.19
Excerpt: ...confirming that Petitioner may install and use a second hoist at the south side location originally approved by the Harbor Master on March 28, 2014, this issue is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner acknowledges in its moving papers that at their October 17, 2018 Board meeting, “Respondents voted on a resolution authorizing Three Captains to install its second hoist and directing their General Manager to take all actions necessary to give effect to the ...
2019.2.19 Demurrer 244
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.19
Excerpt: ...ion in Plaintiff's complaint are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's complaint properly asserts accounting as an alternative theory to his cause of action for breach of contract. California recognizes a cause of action for constructive trust. Michaelian v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 50 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1114. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint within ten days of this order. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Co...
2019.2.19 Motion for Summary Adjudication 076
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.19
Excerpt: ...led to comply with CRC 3.1350(b), which requires that “[T]he specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” Defendants have not repeated the noticed issues verbatim in their separate statement. Further, Defendants have noticed and briefed issues, relating to Plaintiffs' c...
2019.2.15 Demurrer 424
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.15
Excerpt: ... resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. The declaration of Candace Shirley states only that a letter was sent to plaintiff's counsel. Consequently, the hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to March 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer. The demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code‐compliant declaration stating either (1)...
2019.2.15 Motion to Fix Amount of Attorney's Fees 758
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.15
Excerpt: ...hus should not be allowed to recover attorney's fees for their time.” Opposition, p.4. Cross‐Defendant NAS, however, is not an attorney and did not represent itself. Cross‐complainant provides no authority supporting apportionment of fees between attorney and non‐attorney parties when those parties jointly file and prevail on an antiSLAPP motion to strike. See Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal. App. 4th 510, 525, 37 Cal. Rptr....
2019.2.15 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment 142
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.15
Excerpt: ... a default or default judgment entered against him or her as a result of his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. In this case plaintiff is seeking relief from a default judgment entered in its favor, not any judgment or order entered against it. Furthermore, there is no showing that the default was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise of excusable neglect. The declaration of Nichol Alan De Guzman merely states th...
2019.2.14 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 841
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.14
Excerpt: ...iled to provide the court with evidence of an executed or otherwise binding agreement between the parties. Instead, Plaintiff has provided a one‐page “Membership Application and Agreement” that appears to be an application for an account with Plaintiff. Notably, the application makes no reference to a line of credit. Plaintiff also relies on (1) an unsigned “Open End Loan Plan Agreement and Truth in Lending Disclosure,” and (2) monthly ...
2019.2.13 Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings, to Compel Arbitration 565
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...ing resolution of the arbitration is GRANTED. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2 et. seq. California law favors the enforceability of arbitration agreements. See California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), codified by Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1281, et seq.; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 97 (2000). Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that she entered into a binding and enforceable arbitration agreement. See 12‐19‐18 Cap...
2019.2.13 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 903
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...(See Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts nos. 1, 3, 4, 6‐8, 10‐13, 15‐17.) Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Arleen Gonzales for the principal amount of $32,925.50. Plaintiff also requests court costs of $1,033.00 as part of this motion. Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs on November 1, 2018 at the same time this motion was filed. However, a prevailing party who claims costs must file and serve a...
2019.2.11 Demurrer 657
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.11
Excerpt: ...nd Bayview Loan Servicing LLC (“Bayview”) (also collectively “Defendants”) to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) of Plaintiff Mele M. Uperesa (“Plaintiff”) is ruled on as follows: (1) Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Cancellation of Instruments is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND based on failure to allege facts sufficient to support this claim. This claim is alleged against MERS and BONYM. Plaintiff seeks to cancel wr...
2019.2.11 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 789
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.11
Excerpt: ...920, 939. The improperly‐served Opposition (see Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b), requiring service by overnight delivery), does not dispute that joining the proposed new defendants is proper, and does not identify any meaningful prejudice or other basis for disallowing the proposed TAC. Defendant questions the viability of the proposed new claims for “nuisance per se” and “interference with easement,” and the punitive damages claim against t...
2019.2.11 Motion to Compel Further Responses 203
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.11
Excerpt: ...o each request for production of documents with (1) a statement that the party will comply; (2) a statement that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) an objection. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210.  Where a statement of compliance is made, the party must state whether it will comply with a demand in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody or control of the party will b...
2019.2.11 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 281
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.11
Excerpt: ...le, or (3) identify the extent of the relief requested; i.e. what specific performance is sought by court order. In any case, however, the court finds that the contractual provision at issue is inscrutable. The disputed language provides: The valuation shall not include any discounts including discounts for lack of control or lack of marketability of the interest in the LLC, though the appraiser may consider discounts if necessary to be considere...
2019.2.7 Motion to Seal Exhibit, for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 904
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.7
Excerpt: ...otion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication is GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 2.550(d). Based on the Motion, the document is confidential pursuant to the terms of the parties' discovery stipulation; although it was submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, it had limited bearing on the legal issues necessary to adjudication of the motion; and based on those facts, the c...
2019.2.5 Motion to Set Aside Default, Judgment, to Quash Service of Summons 199
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.5
Excerpt: ...NIED. Defendant brings this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, or alternatively, under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). Defendant seeks to set aside the default and default judgment for possession entered on March 7, 2017, and the default judgment for money entered on May 8, 2018. Plaintiff argues that the motion is untimely because Defendant failed to bring it within 180 days after service on Defendant of written notice t...
2019.2.5 Demurrer 944
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.5
Excerpt: ...om its making. (Civ. Code sect. 1624, subd. (a)(1).) However, if it is merely unlikely that it will be so performed, or the period of performance is indefinite, the statute does not apply. (Blaustein v. Burton (1970) 9 Cal. App. 3d 161, 185.) The statute of frauds applies only to contracts that “cannot” be performed within one year. (Hollywood Motion Picture Equip. Co. v. Furer (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 184, 187.) Even though a promise may not by its...
2019.2.4 Demurrer 321
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.4
Excerpt: ... a married spouse of the injured plaintiff or to his or her registered domestic partner. (CACI 3920; Fam. Code sect. 297.5, subd. (c). Plaintiff's reliance on the Butcher case is unpersuasive; the Supreme Court rejected Butcher for the proposition cited by Plaintiff. (See Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 277, 279‐80.) Plaintiff LOPEZ does not allege that she is the spouse or registered domestic partner of Plaintiff ALFARO. Plaintiff LOPEZ...
2019.2.1 Demurrer 715
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.1
Excerpt: ...��) of Plaintiff Sean Bugayong (“Plaintiff”) is ruled on as follows: Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Fraud by CalCare is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for Plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to support this claim. Fraud against a corporation requires pleading facts that allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when i...
2019.2.1 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 937
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.1
Excerpt: ...t is GRANTED. With respect to this cause of action, Masoli alleges that “Cross‐Defendants failed to send Cross‐Complainant a Notice of Intention to Sell Repossessed Vehicle that truthfully and accurately set forth ‘all the conditions precedent' to reinstatement of the Retail Installment Sale Contract in violation of Cal. Civil Code § 2983.2(a)(2).” Cross‐ Complaint, ¶ 69. Masoli, however, does not allege or explain how the notice, w...
2019.2.1 Motion to Strike 715
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.1
Excerpt: ...ded Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Sean Bugayong (“Plaintiff”) is ruled on as follows: Motion to Strike the Claim for Punitive Damages in paragraph 65 of the FAC is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff agrees to withdraw this claim for punitive damages. Motion to Strike the Prayer for Damages in paragraph 4.a of the FAC is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. For the Fourth Cause of Action, Plaintiff seeks “[d]amages for loss of earnings, ...

2530 Results

Per page

Pages