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

2798 Results

Location: San Francisco x
2019.6.27 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 953
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.27
Excerpt: ...ct, and unwanted sexual attention following a 2010 episode of attempted forced sexual contact. Liberally construed - as they must be at the pleading stage - the allegations do not run afoul of the two-year statute of limitations, and they support the element of severe and pervasive unwelcomed conduct of a sexual nature. (SAC 14, 17, 18, 20-23, 26, 34-35; Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, 823; Birschtein v. New United Motor Mfg., ...
2019.6.26 Motion to Compel Deposition, for Monetary Sanctions and Terminating Sanctions 201
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.26
Excerpt: ...t Irene Pangilinan. Pro Tem Judge Maxwell Pritt, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth 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 ...
2019.6.25 Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Actions 596
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.25
Excerpt: ...und, et al.'s motion to transfer and consolidate actions is granted. The claims asserted by Defendant and Cross‐Complainant Arturo Devesa in Devesa v. Stanford University, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 19‐CV‐347760, share numerous common factual and legal issues with those asserted by Mr. Devesa in his second amended cross‐complaint and proposed third amended cross‐ complaint in this action, and involve many of the same...
2019.6.7 Motion to Quash Service of Summons or Stay or Dismiss 532
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.7
Excerpt: ... Cal.App.3d 703, 710.) But the evidence shows Nemedez is a Nevada resident and that the accident occurred in Reno. (Nemedez Dec. 1‐5.) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Nemedez consented to California jurisdiction. Plaintiff's reliance on an Uber form "Software License and Online Services Agreement" fails to show consent in several ways. First, that agreement issued in 2014, there is no evidence Nemedez was subject to it and plain...
2019.6.7 Motion to Transfer or to Stay Proceedings 609
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.7
Excerpt: ... GRANTED. The case regards the break-up of a law firm owned by brothers Daniel and Jonathan Bornstein. Six cases regarding several of the same parties and the same core disputes are already pending in Alameda County, where many of the parties and witnesses live. Moreover, the Alameda County court is no doubt well-versed in the facts underlying the case from years of adjudicating the Bornsteins' disputes. Thus, the "convenience of witnesse...
2019.6.7 Demurrer 150
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.7
Excerpt: ...ained without leave to amend only "where it is clear that there is no reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs could establish a community of interest among the potential class members and that individual issues predominate over common questions of law and fact¿Whenever there is a reasonable possibility plaintiffs can plead a prima facie community of interest among class members, the preferred course is to defer decision on the propriety o...
2019.6.7 Demurrer 596
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.7
Excerpt: ...LLC, Caixa Capital Risc, Magic Stone Alternative Investments, Regent Capital Venture Ltd. and Startcaps Ventures's demurrers to the second amended cross-complaint (SACC) are sustained with leave to amend. Any third amended cross-complaint (TACC) shall: (1) omit irrelevant information; (2) state ultimate facts supporting alleged causes of action in a concise manner; (3) state supporting allegations against each cross-defendant against whom a c...
2019.6.6 Motion to Consolidate Actions 921
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.6
Excerpt: ... fact and law are pending before the court in these cases brought by four Environmental Protection Agency employees. All allege maladies from airborne toxins in their place of work at 75 Hawthorne Plaza related to a large‐scale renovation. Plaintiffs might have moved earlier, but judicial economy will be served and inconsistent adjudications avoided, and consolidation is discretionary. (Todd‐Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48...
2019.6.6 Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens, to File Under Seal 474
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.6
Excerpt: ...5c000300360052>lutions Corp.'s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is GRANTED. A mandatory forum-selection clause "will ordinarily be given effect without any analysis of convenience." (Intershop Communications v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 196.) It need not be determined whether the forum-selection clause in the master services agreement (New York) or the statement of work (Washington) applies; both are mandator...
2019.6.5 Petition to Correct Arbitration Award 423
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.5
Excerpt: ... the court's judgment, and is denied as to the request to correct the amount of the award and is granted as to the incorrect naming of Alex Kwak as a judgment debtor. The court has the inherent power under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(d) to correct clerical mistakes in its judgment. The motion to correct the arbitration award as to the sum awarded is both untimely and unfounded. Because the court intended to confirm the arbitration awa...
2019.6.5 Motion to Stay Discovery or for Protective Order 082
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.5
Excerpt: ...port and recommendation of the judge pro tem. Defendants California Public Utilities Commission, Michael Picker, and Liane M. Randolph's ill‐conceived motion to stay discovery, or in the alternative, for a protective order is denied. Defendants contend that certain of Plaintiff's claims are barred by collateral estoppel or by her failure to exhaust judicial remedies because she did not file a petition for writ of mandate challenging the...
2019.6.5 Motion to Quash Service of Summons or Stay or Dismiss 433
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.5
Excerpt: ...vil Procedure § 389 (b) is moot in light of the court's ruling granting defendant's motion to quash service of summons. According to Ms. Gomez's declaration, she is providing legal services as a natural person and "the Law Office of Alicia Gámez" is a fictitious name under which she is doing business but is not a separate legal entity. (Gámez Decl. 3(c)(d); see Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co. (1996) ...
2019.6.5 Demurrer 567
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.5
Excerpt: ...led. McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241 does not bar the breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of CC&Rs causes of action. All of those claims sound in contract and therefore they are viable. (See Civ. Code § 943(a) ["[T]his title does not apply to any action by a claimant to enforce a contract¿"]; McMillan Albany LLC, 4 Cal.5th at 249 ["the statute here leaves the common law un...
2019.6.5 Demurrer 062
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.5
Excerpt: ...ernment Claims Act apply to plaintiffs' negligence cause of action against the City. (Gov't Code §§ 905, 905.2, 945.4.) The City's records from the Claims Division show that no claim was filed. The court takes judicial notice of the Rothschild declaration pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(c) and Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376. Plaintiffs allege that they sent a letter with their claim to Susan Ehrlich, ...
2019.6.4 Motion to Seal Records 470
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ...alifornia Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551. The Court finds that there exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the portions of the records to be sealed; the overriding interest supports sealing those records; a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and no less restrictive means exist to achieve t...
2019.6.4 Motion for Attorney Fees 234
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ...e of Civil Procedure section 998 offer, which Plaintiff accepted, Defendants offered "to pay reasonable costs, expenses and attorney's fees based on actual time expended pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1794(b) as stipulated by the parties or, if the parties cannot agree, upon motion to the court having jurisdiction over this action." Despite the emphasized language, Plaintiff never made any effort to stipulate to an award ...
2019.6.4 Motion for Reconsideration, for Sanctions 730
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ...ott Smith's motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 15, 2019 order denying Defendant's motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7 is denied, and the Court declines Mr. Smith's invitation to reconsider the order on its own motion pursuant to Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094. None of the purported new evidence Mr. Smith seeks to present affects the basis for the Court's original...
2019.6.4 Petition for Writ of Mandate 974
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ...ted that the incident that gave rise to the administrative decision took place at the East Beach Parking Lot in Crissy Field in the Presidio of San Francisco. The Presidio is a federal enclave in which, with limited exceptions not applicable here, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. (E.g., Standard Oil Co. of California v. California (1934) 291 U.S. 242, 243‐244; United States v. Watkins (N.D. Cal. 1927) 22 F.2d 437, 438‐441; s...
2019.6.3 Motion to Lift Stay of Action Issued on Arbitration Grounds 426
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.3
Excerpt: ...ds is granted. The court orders the stay lifted and the matter restored to calendar because of the arbitration's termination due to Defendants' failure to pay arbitration fees. (Dhillon Decl., Exh.9). (See Cinel v. Christopher (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 759, 769 n.11 ["the arbitration proceedings had not taken place due to failure to pay fees, and thus the trial court regained full jurisdiction, in the language of the statute, at 'suc...
2019.6.3 Motion to Compel Further Discovery, Request for Sanctions 021
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.3
Excerpt: ... who meets all the requirements set forth 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 ...
2019.6.3 Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas 296
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.3
Excerpt: ...ear 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 stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If no...
2019.6.3 Motion to Amend Answer 300
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.3
Excerpt: ...ng policy favoring liberal amendment of pleadings supports the motion. Plaintiff Ali R. Shakoori has failed to show that the proposed amendments are barred by the sham pleading doctrine. "Critically, the sham pleading doctrine 'cannot be mechanically applied.' [Citation.] It 'is not intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations or prevent the correction of ambiguous facts.'" (JPMorgan Chase ...
2019.6.3 Motion for Reconsideration 755
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.3
Excerpt: ...rt's April 10, 2019 order sustaining Defendant David Dyer's demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend is denied. While Plaintiff seeks leave to file a second amended complaint based on certain facts that occurred after he filed his opposition to Defendant's demurrer, the new allegations he seeks to add cannot overcome the dispositive defects identified by the Court in its prior order. His attempt to reargue the Co...
2019.6.3 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 649
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.3
Excerpt: ...intiff was on inquiry notice with regard to her claim at the latest by October 2015. (First Amended Complaint, 33, 39, and 40.) Counsel Kleczek, who represents other plaintiffs with claims similar to plaintiff Rivera's, explains that these allegations only pertained to the other plaintiffs and they have no relevance to plaintiff Rivera's claim. (Kleczek Dec.) The court finds that counsel's drafting error provides a plausible explanati...
2019.6.3 Motion to Strike or Tax Costs, for Attorneys' Fees 537
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.6.3
Excerpt: ... strike or, alternatively, tax Respondents' cost memorandum is granted in the amount of $86.40, and is otherwise denied on the ground that Respondents were the prevailing parties on Petitioners' motion to enjoin arbitration. Respondents shall recover their costs in the amount of $480.00. 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 argume...

2798 Results

Per page

Pages