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

566 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Sonoma x
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M x
2019.10.18 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 393
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.18
Excerpt: ... and Plaintiff flatly refused to come get it, did not ask her family to get it, refused repeatedly to respond or make contact with Defendant, and made additional demands on Defendant. Defendant also argues that if this is based on oral contract the statute of limitations ran before Plaintiff filed the complaint. The elements of conversion are 1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of personal property; 2) interference with plaintiffs “...
2019.10.18 Motion for Summary Adjudication 231
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.18
Excerpt: ...eet Defendants' burden, or change the outcome of the motion. The Court notes that both sides establish all of their facts with the following exceptions: in fact 2, Defendants fail to establish that the Lease “requires” Plaintiffs to provide an addendum, or what the term fully means; in response to fact 4, Plaintiffs posit merely argument, not fact. Defendants fail to meet their burden because their position relies on a single asserted interpr...
2019.10.2 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 321
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.2
Excerpt: ...de of Civil Procedure section 438(c). When brought by a plaintiff, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be based on the assertion “that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to <0003005200490003002600 00460048004700580055[e section 438(c)(1)(A). Otherwise, the rules governing demurrers basically apply. Cloud v. Northrop Grumman ...
2019.1.25 Motion for Sanctions 562
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...s. It does not show that Plaintiff served responses to the requests for admissions or that these were sufficient, and it offers no explanation of the situation. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the failure to serve the responses in time resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Nothing shows why Plaintiff failed to serve responses or oppose the motion to compel and there is no evidence that she failed to do so because her...
2019.1.25 Demurrer 260
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...each of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Krusiewicz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 273 is not controlling here because based on promises to a third party, not the insured, and outside the context of the actual insurance policy. The court reaches this same decision regardless of the possible lateness of the opposition and with or without considering the opposition. Defendant Mid-Century Insurance Company shall file an answe...
2018.8.8 OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 464
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.8.8
Excerpt: ...Road, and/or interfering with Plaintiff Rips Redwood LLC's (Plaintiff) use of Miller Ridge Road. The Plaintiff contends that the previous owners of the parcel that it has owned since 2012 have used the Miller Ranch Road, which is situated, in part, on the Defendants' property, without permission for over 100 years. The Plaintiff argues that given the historical, and adverse, use of the Road, a prescriptive easement has been created. The Plaintiff...
2018.8.8 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 671
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.8.8
Excerpt: ...efendant's motion argues that it cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employee when that employee became intoxicated after stealing wine and caused the injuries alleged in the Complaints. The Defendant argues that under settled principles of respondeat superior it is not liable as Mr. Hoberg's actions deviated from his duties and were in direct contravention of the Defendant's polices against the consumption of alcohol. Further, ...
2018.8.8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 826
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.8.8
Excerpt: ...orcement of a written agreement. The Defendant relies on Exhibit C to the FAC, which she contends demonstrates that the Plaintiff was on notice of the breach of the agreement by August 6, 2012. Further, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's “contingency argument” i.e. that the Defendant's obligations under the agreement were contingent on the sale of the yacht, also result in a bar by the statute of limitations because the yacht was sold ...
2018.7.27 Petition to Compel Arbitration 411
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...on with Plaintiff until May 25, 2018. Moreover, in its CMC statement filed Feb. 9, 2018, Defendant made no mention of arbitration; Defendant checked the boxes stating that it would be willing to take part in mediation, but did not check the box stating that it intended to take part in binding private arbitration, which it now demands. It also stated that it was conducting discovery “per code.” This specifically included written discovery, Pla...
2018.7.27 Motion to Compel Release of Mental Records 969
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...ood cause, the motion is couched improperly and based in part on inapplicable authority. Defendants also brought the motion after first, improperly, serving Plaintiff with a demand for the second exam for obtaining leave to do so. Moreover, Defendants themselves demonstrate that they already knew about the full range and nature of Plaintiff's injuries and treatment, including the neurological component, due to Plaintiff's allegations in the compl...
2018.7.27 Demurrer 675
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ... were, who made the misrepresentations or concealed information, when and who, and how Plaintiff relied on them. He pleads these elements with specificity for the intentional fraud claims. Moreover, negligent misrepresentation is a form of negligence and not subject to the strict particularity pleading requirement. The court also notes that Plaintiff does not expressly identify such a cause of action. The prevailing party is to prepare an order c...
2018.7.27 Demurrer 081
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...e a cause of action. The demurrer for uncertainty is overruled. Request for judicial notice granted. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. ...
2018.7.20 Motion to Compel Further Responses 552
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.20
Excerpt: ...tion at issue because it is directly related to the substantive issues of liability. The responses, largely identical objections repeated with a few minor variations for all the items at issue, are improper and unpersuasive. Plaintiffs are to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. The court will reserve its decision on sanctions. ...
2018.7.20 Motion to Change Venue 686
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.20
Excerpt: ...ant Kingsfield is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. First Amended Complaint pages 5‐6. Defendants thus meet their burden of demonstrating that venue is not proper here and is proper in Contra Costa. Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper here because Defendants called him while he was in Sonoma County. A transaction conducted over the telephone could potentially make venue proper in this county, for example if Plaintiff entered into the alleged ...
2018.7.6 Motion for Summary Judgment 686
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...sign of the intersection and warning signals; Defendant Tognozzi already knew of the intersection, stop light, and configuration so lack of warning was not a cause of the accident; and Tognozzi caused the accident by looking at his phone while driving. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. ...
2018.6.29 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 208
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.6.29
Excerpt: ...ause of action for false promise and Sunhill clearly and specifically alleges that Cross‐defendants falsely promised to comply with the new contractual terms in order to induce Sunhill to enter into the new Lease, expend large sums of money on improving the premises, and release the personal guaranty of Steve Maass. Sunhill has leave to amend within 20 days of the service of the notice of entry of this order. Cross‐Defendants are to serve the...

566 Results

Per page

Pages