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

2505 Results

Location: San Mateo x
2019.8.28 Request for Sanctions 391
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ..., and Aug. 28, 2019, is GRANTED‐IN‐PART, as set forth below. Plaintiff filed 12 separate motions to compel further responses to written discovery requests—4 motions against each of Defendants Autobahn, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Hartford Fire Ins. Co. The 12 motions were set for hearing on Aug. 13, Aug. 14, and Aug. 28, 2019. Defendants then served further responses to the discovery requests before the Aug. 13‐14 hearings. Accordingly...
2019.8.28 Motion to Compel Further Responses 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ...a HIPAA‐compliant protective order which protects the identity of Patient No. 2 in satisfaction of 45 CFR Section 164.512(e)(1)(v) within ten days of this order. Within 5 days of issuance of the protective order, Defendant shall provide verified responses to Request for Production nos. 65 – 68 ("RFP") and produce documents redacting any personally identifying information of Patient No. 2. Plaintiff William Hoy ("Plaintiff") ha...
2019.8.28 Demurrer 274
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ... DENIED as to the Notice of Rescission because it was not provided with the request. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of the Complaint in this action is GRANTED. (2) Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Rescission is OVERRULED. Defendants demur to the First Cause of Action based on failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on the following grounds: (a) Plaintiff accepted the benefits of the contract and theref...
2019.8.28 Motion to Reopen Discovery, to Issue Terminating Sanctions 110
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.28
Excerpt: ...igence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the l...
2019.8.26 Motion to Appoint Arbitrator and Compel Arbitration 760
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.26
Excerpt: ...etition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate the controversy, the court shall order petitioner and respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, unless it finds that certain exceptions apply. (See C.C.P. § 1281.2.) Thus, the court must first order the dispute to arbitr...
2019.8.22 Motion to Compel Further Responses 548
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.22
Excerpt: ...NDANTS' ATTORNEY 0F RECORD JENNY L1 AND DENNIS FAORO IN THE SUM 0F $1,280 TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Plaintiff HaiboYu (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Defendant Aim Consolutions, Inc. (“ACI”) to Further Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Other Tangible Things, Set One, and Defendant Hailin Li (“Li”) to Further Respond to Form Interrogatories, is ruled on as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Compe...
2019.8.21 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal 089
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.21
Excerpt: ...not have authority to stipulate to dismissal of the cause of action. This claim is supported by counsel's declaration, which states that (1) counsel mistakenly believed she had authority to enter the stipulation to dismiss, (2) Plaintiff was not aware of the stipulation, and (3) Plaintiff did not grant authority to enter into the stipulation. [Graves Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4] A misunderstanding between an attorney and client furnishes a proper and suffic...
2019.8.19 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 571
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.19
Excerpt: ... the Ceccatos' supplemental briefing. This motion was continued from July 18, 2019 for supplemental briefing by the Ceccatos. The Ceccatos assert that Bonis should be disqualified as counsel for the Montgomerys due to a conflict of interest based on concurrent representation and successive representation. The court requested further briefing regarding both concurrent and successive representation, as well as briefing on the issue of whether the m...
2019.8.19 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 353
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.19
Excerpt: ...n is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Collateral Estoppel As indicated in Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp., 224 Cal. App. 4th 125, 141 (2014) and other authorities, the preclusive effect of a judgment in a UD action is limited. This is because the only issues typically litigated in a UD action are the plaintiff's right to possession, and the defendant's defenses to the plaintiff's claim of possession. In the prior UD action, the jury determi...
2019.8.16 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...hen the patent expires. (Brulotte v. Thys Co (1964) 379 U.S. 29, 33‐34.) Royalties may continue to be collected past the patent expiration if the royalties represent other than patent rights (hybrid agreement). (Kimble v. Marvel Entm't, LLC (2015) ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2401.) The License Agreement granted patent rights, “technology rights,” and “Improvements,” each of which is specifically defined. RUST‐OLEUM acknowledges that ...
2019.8.16 Motion for Summary Judgment 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...ary, the Complaint expressly states that the breaches were by “Defendants,” an allegation that does implicate RPM. The premise of this motion is that RPM cannot be liable for breach of the licensing agreement because RPM had no contractual obligations under the licensing agreement. The motion argues that RPM “assigned Sierra” to Rust‐Oleum, and Rust‐Oleum continued to perform Sierra's payment obligations under the license agreement. S...
2019.8.16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 264
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.16
Excerpt: ...ct, conversion and common counts.” Notably, however, Plaintiff's complaint did not assert causes of action for breach of contract or conversion. Nonetheless, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action for account stated and money lent, and the answer admits those facts. The answer, however, does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment. As a result, the motion is granted with leave for Defendant to amend ...
2019.8.15 Motion for Reconsideration or Order Expunging Lis Pendens, for Attorneys' Fees 581
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.15
Excerpt: ...to Defendant's demurrer, there is no requirement that a claim for breach of implied covenant must plead the plaintiff's performance of the contract. The authority cited in the Demurrer (Habitat Tr. For Wildlife v. City of Rancho Cucamonga) pertains to claims for breach of contract, not breach of implied covenant. B. Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation) Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to Phuong T. Nguyen, DDS, Inc. The c...
2019.8.13 Motion for Summary of Judgment 786
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.13
Excerpt: ...n dated February 6, 1992. Plaintiff has not identified a proper basis for judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437c. No triable issue of material fact exists as to the dates of record notice of Defendant's interest in the Property and Defendan...
2019.8.13 Motion to File Amended Complaint 326
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.13
Excerpt: ...3 months old. Trial is set for 9‐9‐19. There have been no trial continuances. Although Plaintiff seeks leave to amend relatively late in the case, the evidence before the Court does not demonstrate any prejudice compelling enough to justify denying leave to amend. The Opposition does not argue that granting leave would affect the 9‐9‐19 trial date. Indeed, the proposed FAC adds no new causes of action; all 9 causes of action were already ...
2019.8.12 Motion for Summary Adjudication 637
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.12
Excerpt: ...a cause of action if that party has proved each element of a cause of action to entitle the party to judgment on the cause of action. (C.C.P. § 437c(p)(1).) Once the plaintiff has met its burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) Plaintiff presents evidence to establish all of the elements of the First Cause of Action for Br...
2019.8.2 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 950
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.2
Excerpt: ...ases on their merits if possible. Here, Plaintiffs have already had multiple opportunities to draft and file a Complaint asserting a valid cause of action, beginning with their Complaint filed in federal district court, which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Nonetheless, because Plaintiffs may be able to assert a valid cause(s) of action based on their allegation of unpaid wages (whether in the form of a breach of contract c...
2019.8.1 Motion to Unseal Court Records and Terminate Protective Orders 188
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.1
Excerpt: ...equested relief must be sought from the judge or court that entered the original sealing orders, under the general rule that “The power of one judge to vacate an order duly made by another judge is limited.” Greene v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 224 Cal. App. 3d 1583, 1588 (Ct. App. 1990). The People have provided no authority indicating that this court can unseal records ordered to be sealed by another judge or court. Further, as indicated i...
2019.8.1 Demurrer 581 (2)
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.1
Excerpt: ...or a Plaintiff to demur to them. However, California law requires that affirmative defenses be pleaded with ultimate facts. Demurrer is sustained because the affirmative defenses plead on legal theories, but not any ultimate facts. Defendants cite cases that recognize a fine distinction between proper ultimate facts and improper legal conclusions; such pleading must be read in context with other allegations. (See cases cited at Defendants' Opposi...
2019.7.31 Motion to Quash Services of Summons 131
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.31
Excerpt: ...h Trevor initially stopped, he left and later returned with his son, Defendant Lawrence Tam (“Lawrence”). The investigating police officer completed a traffic collision report that incorrectly identifies Lawrence, as the driver, and Trevor, as the son. Plaintiff filed this Complaint against Lawrence only, but then filed an Amendment to the Complaint substituting Trevor as Doe 1. Trevor brings this motion on the ground that Plaintiff improperl...
2019.7.31 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 383
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.31
Excerpt: ...D pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 451, 452, and 453. Defendant's objections to evidence are DENIED. Plaintiff's objections to evidence are DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication is DENIED pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 437c. Defendant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to any of the four causes of action in Plaintiff's Complaint. As to the Firs...
2019.7.31 Motion for Judgment 199
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.31
Excerpt: ...leging a fraud claim against a corporate defendant, a plaintiff must “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 it was said or written.” Lazar v. Sup.Ct. (Rykoff‐Sexton, Inc.) (1996) 12 C4th 631, 645. Newsweek has not alleged who made the alleged fraudulent representations or what was said. Consequently, Newsweek has fail...
2019.7.30 Demurrer 506
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.7.30
Excerpt: ...f”), is ruled on as follows: (1) Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits A, B, C, E, F, G, J and K. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits D, H, I, and L, but the court does not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted in any of these documents. (See Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 8...
2019.7.29 Motion to Strike 249
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: ...nscious disregard of the rights and safety of others. Rather, the complaint alleges that the ant infestation and accumulation of dog droppings occurred, but not that Defendants caused them or that Defendants intentionally refrained from addressing the problems. As to the mold, Plaintiff alleges that he discovered the mold on June 30, 2017, and a restoration company began remediating just one week later. (SAC para. 16 & 17.) As to the shelving, Pl...
2019.7.29 Demurrer 249
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: .... (SAC paras. 23 ‐ 27.) The new allegations do not describe conduct that is “extreme and outrageous” for IIED. Further, the wrongful conduct “must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Wilson v. S. California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 123, 152.) The new allegations do not state or imply that Defendants' conduct was “directed at Plaintiff.” None of th...
2019.7.29 Demurrer 765
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: ...egis Group of Northern California, LLC et. al.'s Demurrer to Plaintiff Sodini Enterprises, Inc., et. al.'s 5‐17‐19 First Amended Complaint (FAC) is OVERRULED. A demurrer challenges defects that appear on the face of the pleading, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318. In ruling on a demurrer, the trial court is required to construe the complaint liberally with a view of ...
2019.7.29 Motion for Summary Judgment 131
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.29
Excerpt: ...er Plaintiff to file a proper one. Instead, the Court admonishes and directs attorneys John F. Martin, Marta R. Venegas, Brittany C. Jones, and the entire law firm of Martin& Vanegas to learn and comply with all Rules of Court in this and every other case. Plaintiff also has filed, without leave of court, two sets of supplemental evidence (July 19 and 22) after Defendant had already filed its Reply papers. Plaintiff never sought leave for the del...
2019.7.26 Demurrer 940
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.26
Excerpt: ... based on failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The Complaint indicates that Plaintiffs are bringing causes of action for General Negligence, Intentional Tort and Premises Liability. (See Complaint ¶ 10.) It also appears Plaintiffs may be attempting to allege a cause of action for Breach of Contract as well. (See Complaint, ¶ 12.) However, “each complaint must have one or mo...
2019.7.26 Motion for Summary Judgment 843
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.26
Excerpt: ...ty, Defendant it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The facts of this case are not in dispute. According to Plaintiff's complaint, on the evening of October 25, 2015, [P]laintiff was on the premises of the PALO MAR STABLES, there to visit with defendant ROBIN [HOWLAND] and/or to tend to her own horse. As she walked on the premises, she walked past the vicinity of [Ms. Howland's horse,] Valentino, who was at that time not properly in his ...
2019.7.26 Motion to Stay Proceedings 731
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.26
Excerpt: ...il Procedure Section 187, cited by Plaintiff as support for this Motion, authorizes the Court to use the means necessary to carry jurisdiction into effect, but does not specifically discuss a motion to stay the action. CCP Section 418.10(a)(2) reads “A defendant... may file a notice of motion… [t]o stay or dismiss an action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” Here, it is plaintiff moving for a stay, and the ground for the request is not r...
2019.7.24 Motion to Strike 232
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...motion seeks to strike the request for “restitution” and “damages” in ¶1 of the XC's Prayer for Relief. As an initial matter, the Opposition brief argues a request for rescission may validly exist without any accompanying claim for restitution. This is irrelevant because CrossDefendants have not moved to strike the XC's request for a rescission; they only seek to strike the request for “restitution” and “damages” in ¶1 of the Pr...
2019.7.24 Motion for Determination of Fee Award 917
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ... the choice of law provision contained in the parties' Agreement. Defendant Cheung contends that, notwithstanding the choice of law provision, California law applies to the dispute over attorney's fees pursuant to Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc., 8 Cal. App. 5th 1 (Ct. App. 2017) and ABF Capital Corp. v. Grove Properties Co., 126 Cal. App. 4th 204, 220 (2005). The facts of Grove are similar to the present case: Plaintiff and re...
2019.7.24 Motion for Attorney Fees 802
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ... Before Trial (Rutter, Jun. 2019 Update) ¶ 9:102.6.) Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, BUT NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED THEREIN, as to: (1) Request no. 1 (Petition filed on March 28, 2019); (2) Request no. 5 (Petitioner's reply papers filed May 2, 2019); and (3) Request no. 6 (Court's tentative ruling and order of May 9 and 10, 2019). Respondent's Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as to: (1) Re...
2019.7.24 Demurrer 232
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...f Action for “fraud in the inducement” and “promissory fraud” is OVERRULED. Cross‐Defendants argue the XC fails to allege any misrepresentation(s) of fact. It alleges, however, that Cross‐Defendants falsely represented, both on their website and orally, that (a) they had accelerated 120+ Startups; (b) they had obtained $400,000,000 for those startups; (c) those startups are currently valued at $4 billion; (d) they had partners and loc...
2019.7.24 Motion to Enforce Settlement 961
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...ent Agreement”) entered into with Defendant in August 2018. (See Campbell Decl., Exh. A.) The court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement, if requested by the parties. (C.C.P § 664.6.) The Settlement Agreement, which is signed by both parties, contains such a provision here. (See Settlement Agreement ¶ 23.) Plaintiff establishes that Defendant George P. Esho...
2019.7.23 Motion to Seal 870
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...ation overcomes the right of public access to the records and supports sealing them. Absent an order sealing this information, defendant's rights will be prejudiced as the records would be available to the public. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and there is no less restrictive means to protect defendant's right to privacy. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant ...
2019.7.23 Motion to Compel Completion of Deposition 862
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...imited Dr. Steinberg's deposition to this period. In a January 29 letter to Plaintiff's counsel, defense counsel stated: Gary Steinberg, M.D. is available on 3/7 from 2:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at Stanford. Unfortunately, this is the only available weekday Dr. Steinberg has within the next couple of months. If you are not available on this date, we will have to schedule his deposition on a Saturday. Please let us know. [Dolinski Decl., Ex. E] Plaint...
2019.7.23 Motion for Protective Order 321
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...esent Disclosure is operative, and Plaintiff may challenge it. Defendant correctly points out that there is no such thing as “cumulative experts” based on their specialty. Rather, the prohibition is against testimony that is cumulative. Plaintiff's motion does not identify any specific testimony of any expert witness that is cumulative of any other witness. B. Motion to Exclude Dr. Ament or to Disqualify Defendant's Counsel. The motion to exc...
2019.7.23 Demurrer 574
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...e to pay rent or quit based on the language in the Late Payment Schedule agreement (“agreement”). (See Complaint, Exh. 1, p.2.) However, the agreement does not contain any language requiring a 30‐day notice. Rather, the agreement provides that after 30 days, “an eviction notice will be posted.” (Ibid.) “Unless the rent is brought current and late fees are paid, the Tennant [sp] shall be vacated from the unit after 60 days of nonpaymen...
2019.7.22 Demurrers 502
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.22
Excerpt: ...Same Parties. The parties must stand in the same relationship (i.e., as plaintiff or defendant) in both suits. (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 789 [“absolute identity of parties” required].) In ED 1005's cross‐complaint in the Lease Action, the parties are identical to the unlawful detainer action, but only as to Vinh Nguyen. Defendant Broadway Prime Motorz is not a party to the cross‐complaint. Thus, ...
2019.7.19 Demurrer 437
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.19
Excerpt: ...DENIED as moot. All proceedings in this action are hereby STAYED pending resolution of the appeal from this court's order granting Defendant's motion to quash service of summons in Docket No. 17‐CIV‐05088, assigned Appellate Case No. A157248, or until this court orders, upon a showing of good cause, that the stay should be lifted. The court finds that the Court of Appeals' determination in Appellate Case No. A157248 may have significant beari...
2019.7.9 Demurrer 763
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ...act is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. This claim alleges WF breached ¶28 of the Deed of Trust (DOT), which Plaintiff contends states that Plaintiff may reinstate the loan up to five business days prior to the foreclosure sale. First, ¶28 of the DOT does not say that. And even if it did, the FAC still would not allege a breach because, as with the original Complaint, nowhere does the FAC allege that Plaintiff ever offered to reinstate the loan m...
2019.7.9 Demurrer 234
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ...19, 2018. It filed the present demurrer and motion to strike on May 17, after the time to file a responsive pleading expired. Accordingly, Cornerstone's motion is untimely. Cornerstone contends that there is “no timeliness issue” with respect to the present motions. However, no argument or evidence is submitted in support of this position. Facts Sufficient to State a Claim Cornerstone's demurrer fails on the merits for the same reasons set fo...
2019.7.9 Motion to Strike 234
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.9
Excerpt: ... FAC on December 19, 2018. It filed the present demurrer and motion to strike on May 17, after the time to file a responsive pleading expired. Accordingly, Cornerstone's motion is untimely. Cornerstone contends that “this motion is indisputably timely.” However, Cornerstone presents no argument or evidence in support of this position. Relation Back As noted in the court's ruling on the related demurrer, Cornerstone has provided no authority i...
2019.7.8 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment 927
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.8
Excerpt: ...ion and has not provided a proposed answer as required by CCP §§ 473 and 473.5. The language of those statutes is mandatory, in that they require that an application for relief from default “shall” be accompanied by a proposed answer. Although Plaintiff appears to be willing to stipulate to set aside the entry of default, the court is not empowered to grant the requested relief due to Defendant's failure to satisfy the mandatory requirement...
2019.7.5 Motion to Augment Expert Witness List 038
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...r expert and sent a witness disclosure statement to Plaintiff. [Gumear Decl, ¶¶ 5, 8, 9] Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and, accordingly, has not provided any reason why he would be prejudiced by augmentation of Defendant's expert witness list. The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses and has determined that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in maintaining his actio...
2019.7.5 Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement 038
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...fore this court. Accordingly, it's not clear whether CCP § 877.6 provides GE with authority to file an application for a good faith settlement determination. As set forth in CCP § 877.6, that statute applies to “a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co‐obligors.” Because Defendant's complaint has not alleged that GE is a joint tortfeasor, it is not clear how this scenario fits ...
2019.7.5 Demurrer 445
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.5
Excerpt: ...the breached covenant is curable. Case law holds that a prohibitory covenant, once broken, cannot be cured. (See, e.g. Hignell v. Gebala (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 61, 69 (lease required use as apartment house; tenant used it for real estate business; breach was incurable); Pfitzer v. Candeias (1921) 53 Cal.App. 737, 739‐740 (livestock raised on land leased for growing alfalfa held to be noncurable breach).) Here, Defendant's alleged breaches of cove...
2019.7.3 Motion to Compel Second Deposition 468
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.3
Excerpt: ...he repeated interruptions and interjections by defense counsel, Plaintiff cites no authority indicating that CCP § 2025.290 excludes breaks or interruptions from the permitted “seven hours of total testimony.” Third, the Court notes that when Plaintiff's counsel adjourned the deposition, he stated “This has been – this has been plenty long for me, starting at 9:00 to 4:00.” At the conclusion of the deposition, counsel did not indicate ...
2019.7.3 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 208
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.7.3
Excerpt: ...tiffs contend that the Court may enforce Defendant's payment obligation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 without the parties' having signed the separate settlement agreement; Defendant contends that without a signed separate agreement, enforcement under section 664.6 is not permissible. The Court does not decide whether enforcement of the October 16, 2018, agreement is possible without an executed separate settlement agreement. The sig...

2505 Results

Per page

Pages