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

2831 Results

Location: San Francisco x
2019.7.10 Motion to File Exhibit Under Seal, for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 325
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.10
Excerpt: ...ortions 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 the overriding interest. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm st...
2019.7.10 Motion to Determine Restitution 569
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.10
Excerpt: ...'s motion for an order determining restitution pursuant to Defendant FCA US LLC's § 998 offer is granted in the amount of $28,003.83. Pursuant to Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C), the mileage offset is to be determined on the basis of "the number of miles traveled by the new motor vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized service and repair facility for correcti...
2019.7.10 Motion to Compel Inspection of Real Property 672
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.10
Excerpt: ...igned 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 stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by em...
2019.7.10 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Complaint or Stay Proceedings 451
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.10
Excerpt: ...tion of the claim asserted in Plaintiff Zainali "Zain" Jaffer's complaint is granted and the action is stayed pending conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The court exercises its discretion to review evidence submitted with Vungle's reply brief. Plaintiff may respond at the hearing, including with submission of additional evidence. (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1056-1059...
2019.7.1 Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Entry of Default 490
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.1
Excerpt: ... default is denied. Mandatory relief is not available under the attorney affidavit of fault provision of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) because Defendant has not submitted "an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect." (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Defendant does not contend that its default was taken as a result of the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect of counsel,...
2019.7.1 Motion to Dismiss Case Based on Forum Non Conveniens 852
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.1
Excerpt: ...native forum because Uber is subject to the personal jurisdiction of Washington courts, none of Plaintiffs' claims would be barred by the statute of limitations, and Washington can provide an adequate remedy for Plaintiffs' claims. (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 752; Boaz v. Boyle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 710.) Plaintiff Gorne's jurisdictional ties to California are irrelevant. As a non-California resident, his...
2019.7.1 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Sanctions 443
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.1
Excerpt: ...rements 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 a party appears by telep...
2019.7.1 Motion for Reconsideration 730
Location: San Francisco
Judge: Department 302
Hearing Date: 2019.7.1
Excerpt: ...tions 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 ruling, i.e., that a self‐represented litigant may not recover an award of attorneys' fees or other expenses as san...
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 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 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...
2019.6.7 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...
2019.6.6 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...
2019.6.6 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...
2019.6.5 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 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...
2019.6.4 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 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 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 ...
2019.6.3 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...
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...

2831 Results

Per page

Pages