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

2838 Results

Location: San Francisco x
2020.01.15 Motion to Strike Complaint 662
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.15
Excerpt: ...rth the elements stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294, including allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) "Malice" is defined as conduct "intended by the defendant to cause injury to plaintiff, or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others." (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)....
2020.01.15 Motion to Compel Further Responses 030
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.15
Excerpt: ...orth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the sti...
2020.01.15 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 802
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.15
Excerpt: ...The alleged extortion occurred during the litigation process (Mr. Schuldner's deposition). Petitioning activity "includes qualifying acts committed by attorneys in representing clients in litigation." (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056; see also Contreras v. Dowling (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 394, 409 ["'all communicative acts performed by attorneys as part of their representation of a client in a judicial proceeding or other petitioning co...
2020.01.14 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 679
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.14
Excerpt: ...t the claim. (Compl. 14, 18; see Shade Foods v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 879-880 ["Among the most critical factors bearing on the insurer's good faith is the adequacy of its investigation of the claim. '[T]he covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in all insurance agreements entails a duty to investigate properly submitted claims.' . . . . [] An unreasonable failure to investigate amounting t...
2020.01.13 Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings 200
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.13
Excerpt: ...entative Ruling Only) Second, even if the alleged fraud applies solely to the delegation clause, plaintiff does not make a sufficient offer of proof to warrant time-consuming discovery. Plaintiff's declaration asserts that defendants falsely told her that arbitration was more amicable and efficient. Plaintiff mischaracterizes the alleged misrepresentation. The agreement provides that "It is the intent of Optum360 that legal disputes be resolved a...
2020.01.13 Motion to Strike 729
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.13
Excerpt: ...et forth the elements stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294, including allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) "Malice" is defined as conduct "intended by the defendant to cause injury to plaintiff, or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others." (Civ. Code § 3294(c...
2020.01.10 Motion to Compel Arbitration, Demurrer 174
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.10
Excerpt: ...tures, Llc. Defendants Niraj Mehta and Fifth Set Ventures, LLC's (FSV) petition to compel arbitration and motion to stay proceedings are granted. The disputes and claims pled by the complaint arise and/or result from the purchase of a house. The purchase agreement (Cmplt. Ex. A) has an arbitration clause: "any dispute or claim In Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction?shall be decided by neutral bind...
2020.01.10 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 078
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.10
Excerpt: ...n's summary judgment motion is thus ordered off calendar as moot. Plaintiff cannot establish that Mott's engaged in unlawful conduct or was unjustly enriched, because Mott's conduct was legal as a matter of law. Plaintiff alleges that the true statement "No Sugar Added" on Mott's 100% Apple Juice's label violates 21 CFR 101.60(c)(2)(iv). (SAC 11; hereafter in this order all regulatory citations are to 21 CFR and all internal citations and quote m...
2020.01.09 Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas 878
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.09
Excerpt: ...ling part 1 of 2) Plaintiff's motion to quash deposition subpoenas for production of business records and/or for protective order is granted in part. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,700. Defendant's motion for sanctions is denied. This lawsuit arises out of an incident that occurred on July 9, 2018, when Plaintiff was arrested by the San Francisco Police Department for allegedly refusing to follow orders to vacate ...
2020.01.09 Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel 969
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.09
Excerpt: ...achen, making him a former client. (See Koo v. Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 728 ["Before an attorney may be disqualified from representing a party in litigation because his representation of that party is adverse to the interest of a current or former client, it must first be established that the party seeking the attorney's disqualification was or is 'represented' by the attorney in a manner giving rise to an attorney‐...
2020.01.09 Motion for Attorneys' Fees 707
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.09
Excerpt: ...f action against Defendant Richard Moore for intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent interference with prospective economic relations in connection with Plaintiff's distribution and cooperation agreement with TG Digesters, Inc., a Canadian corporation. Those tort claims arose out of Moore's actions in negotiating a contract between Plaintiff and the Hyatt Centric Fisherman's Wharf Hotel. Plaintiff alleged that Moore was ...
2020.01.08 Motion for Summary Judgment 437
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.08
Excerpt: ..., 641‐642 [independent contractor's hirer maintained summary judgment burden based on the Privette presumption, which establishes a presumption that the hirer delegated the duty to provide a safe work environment to the hired contractor]. However, Plaintiff demonstrates a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Nibbi's direct negligence affirmatively contributed to her injury. (See Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4...
2020.01.08 Motion to Set Aside Judgments 388
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.08
Excerpt: ... of 2) Petitioners' motion to set aside judgments is denied. Although Petitioners' motion is plainly frivolous, solely to avoid further burden on the Court and the parties, Respondents' request that the Court issue an OSC re contempt is denied. A trial court's power to grant such relief is governed by jurisdictional statutory limits. Motions to set aside a judgment must comply with the procedural requirements of Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 663 and 66...
2020.01.08 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 308
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.08
Excerpt: ...Only Part 2 Of 2) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for the City and County of San Francisco is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substan...
2020.01.08 Motion to Strike Punitive Damages, Request for Attorneys' Fees 010
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.08
Excerpt: ...mbarcadero Dentistry, a California corporation," is granted. The claim for punitive damages is improper, as this is an action for damages arising out of the alleged professional negligence of a health care provider and Plaintiff did not seek an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages. Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, section 425.13 is not inapplicabl...
2020.01.07 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 787
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.07
Excerpt: ...form Partnership Act (RUPA). Corp. Code § 16101(11). Dissociation occurs upon "[t]he partnership's having notice of the partner's express will to withdraw as a partner or on a later date specified by the partner." (Id. § 16601(1).) Partnership dissolution occurs "[i]n a partnership at will, by the express will to dissolve and wind up the partnership business of at least half of the partners, including partners . . . who have dissociated within ...
2020.01.07 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 480
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.07
Excerpt: ...there is no proof that plaintiff's main target for relief (Allstate Insurance Company) has been served with the complaint or this motion. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 527(a) ["No preliminary injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposing party."].) Second, plaintiff fails to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Competent evidence demonstrates that defendants were not aware of plaintiff's lien when the underlying tort case was set...
2020.01.07 Demurrer 369
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.07
Excerpt: ...alleges that "a runaway, unoccupied, car that all the defendants were trying to tow ran over and killed plaintiffs' decedent." (Defs.' Yaco and Yaqo's Demurrer 2: 6-7.) These allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for both motor vehicle and general negligence. "To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's p...
2020.01.06 Motion for Sanctions 757
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.06
Excerpt: ...Defendants 1850 Bryant Land LLC, Christopher Paul Foley, and Douglass Ross' motion for sanctions against Plaintiff Leiasa Beckam pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is denied. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. Defendants fail to carry their burden to show that Plaintiff filed the complaint primarily for an improper purpose, or that it is legally or factually frivolous. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(b); see San Diegans for Op...
2020.01.06 Demurrer 731
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.06
Excerpt: ...iffs and Vantage Maintenance. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Compl., 2, 5, 9, 11.) Vantage Maintenance argues the allegations use boilerplate language, but at the outset of litigation, the amount of specificity in Plaintiffs' complaint adequately gives the Defendants notice of the issues. (See, e.g., Barsegian v. Kessler & Kessler (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 446, 451.) Similarly, at the pleading stage, Plaintiffs do not have to specifically name which ...
2020.01.06 Demurrer 096
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2020.01.06
Excerpt: ...ted liability company doing business as Coast to Coast Manufacturing and substituted Stylex wherever Coast to Coast appeared in the cross‐complaint. According to its article of organization, Stylex did not exist until July 30, 2018. (RJN, Exh. 1.) The allegations in the cross‐complaint concern events that occurred in 2012 and 2013. (Cross‐Complaint 8, 14, 19, 20, 21.) The cross‐complaint does not properly allege facts to support successor...
2019.9.9 Motion for Evidence, Issue, Terminating, and Monetary Sanctions 625
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.9.9
Excerpt: ... following tentative ruling: The Motion is granted in part, with supplemental briefing and a continued hearing required: Plaintiff is in violation of the Court's October 16, 2018 Order Re Discovery (Ex A to Moss Declaration). Plaintiff, in pro per, is advised that the prospect of settlement, while perhaps desirable, in no way affects the trial date or her obligations as a litigant to respond under oath in writing to written discovery requests...
2019.9.5 Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 878
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.9.5
Excerpt: ...from defendant is granted on the following conditions: (1) the Court will enter the parties' stipulated confidentiality order, which the parties shall submit at or prior to the hearing; (2) the City shall produce the body worn camera videos, without further redactions, and shall designate those portions of the videos that it contends are entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law; (3) the City shall provide a description of any c...
2019.9.5 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 596
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.9.5
Excerpt: ...es: 1. Does plaintiff's undisputed status as a temporary employee (UMF 3‐6) preclude her claims? (See Jenkins v. County of Riverside (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 593, 616‐617 [trial court properly granted summary judgment on FEHA claim by plaintiff, who worked more than the 1,040 hours allowed to a temporary employee]; see also Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 994 [plaintiff's proposed accommodation "amo...
2019.9.5 Motion for Summary Judgment 547
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 503 Asbestos
Hearing Date: 2019.9.5
Excerpt: ...in its initial burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that decedent Robert Douglas was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) It cannot be inferred that Plaintiff Steven Douglas would have been unable to recognize F.W. Spencer where no follow up questions were asked. (see Weber v. John Crane, ...

2838 Results

Per page

Pages