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
2019.3.26 Motion to Strike Answer 044
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.26
Excerpt: ...e section 435.5 is based on an incorrect reading of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moving party's Reply brief contends that the meet/confer requirement is inapplicable because the motion is pursuant to sections 128(a) and 436. Section 128(a) merely identifies the court's general powers; it has nothing to do with a motion to strike. Section 436 authorizes a motion to strike. However, section 435.5 provides that the moving party must meet and confer ...
2019.3.26 Demurrer 215
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.26
Excerpt: ...nder CCP §1632. That section provides, in pertinent part, as follows. (b) Any person engaged in a trade or business who negotiates primarily in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean, orally or in writing, in the course of entering into any of the following, shall deliver to the other party to the contract or agreement and prior to the execution thereof, a translation of the contract or agreement in the language in which the contract o...
2019.3.25 Motion to Disqualify Counsel 832
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.25
Excerpt: ...th interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same “or a substantially related matter” if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.” (Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.18(b), (c).) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Chew failed to close escrow on the sale of Chew's property after consulting with Perkins Coie. Plaintiff contends that cer...
2019.3.25 Motion for Sanctions 858
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.25
Excerpt: ...o the settlement, or (2) had no intention of honoring the terms of the settlement, or (3) allowed the motion to be filed because it intended to cause a delay of the trial or delay performance on the settlement causing additional damage to Elevation.” [MPA, p.3] Elevation, however, has failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish that Terrace acted for the sole purpose of harassment or delay. Counsel for Terrace asserts in his declaration t...
2019.3.25 Motion for Leave to Amend 407
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.25
Excerpt: ...ing KW's Demurrer to the fraud cause of action in Plaintiffs' original Complaint, on grounds Plaintiffs had alleged no underlying facts supporting their conclusory allegation that KW ratified/authorized Defendant Yu's conduct (Civ. Code § 2339), and had alleged no facts supporting employer liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The 12‐6‐18 Order granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to allege, if they could, a fraud claim against K...
2019.3.22 Motion for Summary Adjudication 828
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.22
Excerpt: ... to Evidence Code Sections 403, 702, 1401, and 1402, and California Rules of Court Rule 3.1110(g). The assertion that the March 17, 2015 agreement, including both the English translation and the Chinese language version, was prepared by SUE is not supported by the evidence currently before the court. The remainder of Defendant's evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED pursuant to Code of Civ. Pr...
2019.3.22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 418
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.22
Excerpt: ...1) Defendant entered into an account with Bank of America, (2) Defendant authorized all transactions on the account, (3) the present balance is $5,005.59, and (4) Defendant's last payment on the account was on April 16, 2017. These admissions are sufficient to establish amount of a debt, but not sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to judgment on the pleadings. B. The Motion Fails to Dispose of Any Cause of Action. The complaint alleges three common c...
2019.3.21 Motion to Compel Further Responses 203
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.21
Excerpt: ...1, is ruled on as follows: The motion to Request nos. 12‐16 is GRANTED. The County establishes good cause for production of these documents. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify the objection. (Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.app.4th 92, 98.) Here, Jane Doe #1 failed to oppose this motion, and therefore has not justified her objections. The motion to Request no. 17 is ...
2019.3.20 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 483
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.20
Excerpt: ...detect the wrongful acts of Clark. A. The Proposed Cross‐Complaint Appears to State a Cause of Action. Generally, whether a pleading states a cause of action should be decided by demurrer, not on a motion for leave to file the pleading. For purposes of this motion only, the Court declines to apply the case of Jaffe v. Huxley Architecture (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1188. The same court that decided Jaffe later limited that case to its facts. (See Pla...
2019.3.19 Motion for Assignment Order 653
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.19
Excerpt: ...sufficient evidence to establish that Judgment Debtor has the right to any payment from Momentum Auto Group, Inc. and Fairfield CJD, LP. The declaration of Plaintiff's account manager, Pliny Jones, states that declarant is informed and believes that Defendant is entitled to receive income from these entities as an independent contractor based on an internet search performed. However, declarant fails to set forth any facts to support how declarant...
2019.3.19 Petition to Compel Binding Contract Arbitration 149
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.3.19
Excerpt: ...ion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is DENIED. Plaintiff waived his right to compel arbitration. Plaintiff complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.5 by alleging that he does not waive the right to arbitrate and intends to move, within 30 days after serving the Complaint, to compel arbitration. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 1281.5, subd. (a); see Complaint at 12:13‐20.) Section 1281.5 requires that “within 30 days” after serving...
2019.3.18 Demurrer 872
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.18
Excerpt: ...ce of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows merely that the action may be barred. McMahon v. Republic Van & Storage Co., Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 871, 874. Here, the statute of limitations bar appears clearly on the face of the Verified Complaint as Plaintiff admits that he waited nineteen years to assert a claim to the Subject Property. The discovery rule does not save Plaintiff's claims. It is the discovery of facts, not their l...
2019.3.15 Petition to Compel Mandatory Arbitration, to Stay 397
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.15
Excerpt: ...e of whether the existence of Defendants, who are necessary parties to Plaintiffs' claim for partition, but who are non‐signatories to the arbitration provision of the Bagnarols' LLC operating agreement, precludes the Court from determining that Plaintiffs' claim is subject to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement. Because Plaintiffs have not presented authority indicating that the existence of third parties precludes application of...
2019.3.15 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment, Enter Another and Different Judgment 922
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.15
Excerpt: ...ndant's motion is procedurally defective as it fails to include a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed in this action. Code Civ. Proc. §473(b). If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice...
2019.3.15 Motion to Compel Verified Answers, for Sanctions 701
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.15
Excerpt: ...RULING: The Motion of Plaintiff Bonnie Rodemeyer (“Plaintiff”) and proposed additional Plaintiffs Kristina L. Nelson, Michael J. Rodemeyer and Edward E. Rodemeyer, III (“proposed Plaintiffs”) to Compel Defendant Jim Heldberg dba Silicon Segway to Serve Verified Answers and for Issuance of Monetary Sanctions is ruled on as follows: This motion purports to be brought by the proposed Plaintiffs, who are not yet parties to this action. Theref...
2019.3.15 Motion to Compel Production of Independent Medical Examiner Report 701
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.15
Excerpt: ... Motion of Plaintiff Bonnie Rodemeyer (“Plaintiff”) and proposed additional Plaintiffs Kristina L. Nelson, Michael J. Rodemeyer and Edward E. Rodemeyer, III (“proposed Plaintiffs”) to Compel Defendants Jim Heldberg and Professional Computing Solutions, Inc. dba Silicon Segway (“Defendants”) to Produce Independent Medical Examiner (“IME”) Report is ruled on as follows: This motion purports to be brought by the proposed Plaintiffs, ...
2019.3.15 Demurrer 581
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.15
Excerpt: ...the entire cause of action for failure to allege the legal description of the property and failure to allege tender of the outstanding debt. The allegation of tender is not excused; Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that the sale was void. B. Third Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Covenant) Demurrer is SUSTAINED. Of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the pleading fails to allege a breach. The acts of which Plaintiffs com...
2019.3.14 Motion to Compel Responses, Request for Monetary Sanctions 828
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.14
Excerpt: ...019. There are no acts for the Court to compel. The sufficiency of the objections and responses are not at issue in the present motion since the motion is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300 and not 2030.300 or 2031.310. (See Notice of Motion.) Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is DENIED. A motion to compel production of documents is proper when a party responds that he will comply with the reques...
2019.3.11 Motion to Quash or Limit Deposition Subpoena, for Protective Order 001
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.11
Excerpt: ... Proc. §1987.1. These subpoenas seek information that is protected by Plaintiff's privacy rights. In Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, the Court barred disclosure of “personnel… or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. at 529; see Cal. Const., Article I, §1. Defendants fail to demonstrate a compelling need for the production of these documents...
2019.3.11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 228
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.11
Excerpt: ...d cause of action against Defendant. All of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are barred by res judicata. Res judicata gives certain conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation involving the same controversy. (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797.) Claim preclusion operates as a bar to a second lawsuit between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Id.) The elements for claim preclusion are: ...
2019.3.1 Demurrer 123
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ...Memorandum of Points & Authorities, neither Defendant's Notice of Motion nor the Demurrer itself state that the Demurrer is being brought under Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(a), which is the subsection dealing with subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the jurisdiction argument was not properly noticed. Further, the cited authority does not establish that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this breach of contract claim. The Complaint is no...
2019.3.1 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint 353
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ...App.2d 194, 197.) The same policy favoring liberality in amended pleadings applies so that all matters in dispute between the parties may be resolved in a single lawsuit if reasonably possible. (Id.) Plaintiffs seek to supplement the Complaint to include allegations of additional trespasses and nuisances that they have discovered since the Complaint was filed. The only prejudice argued by Defendants is that they have already deposed Plaintiffs an...
2019.3.1 Motion to Compel Production of Docs, for Sanctions 748
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ...tter. The Court directs Plaintiffs' counsel to file motions separately in the future. A. BLACK PINE GROUP's Motion to Compel JAMES YOUNG to Produce Documents The motion is DENIED. 1. The motion identifies documents that purportedly have not been produced, but the motion does not indicate whether the missing documents are responsive to any document category. Plaintiff's failure to specify the document categories places the burden on the Court to f...
2019.2.28 Motion to Strike 633
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.28
Excerpt: ...olves the objections to be raised in the motion. §435.5(a)(3) requires the moving party to file and serve with the motion a declaration stating either the means by which the moving party met and conferred and that they did not reach an agreement or that the party who filed the pleading that is the subject of the motion failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. The declaration of Gopal ...
2019.2.28 Motion for Summary Adjudication 285
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.28
Excerpt: ...18, 19 and 20. As to the Declaration of Gilg, the Court overrules Chantler's Objection 1 and sustains Objection 2. The Court exercises its discretion to not rule on Yeganeh's Objections since none of the matter to which Yeganeh objects was necessary or material to the Court's analysis of the present motion. (See Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 437c, subd. (q).) B. Issue 1 (Sixth Cause of Action) Plaintiff Chantler's claim for action on a judgment is tim...
2019.2.27 Motion to Quash Civil Subpoena or for Protective Order 019
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...ive Order, filed 2‐13‐19, which includes a request for attorney's fees, is GRANTED‐IN‐PART and DENIEDIN‐PART, as set forth below. Plaintiff has not filed any “Opposition” per se, but on 2‐19‐19, filed and served (by regular mail) a document stating Plaintiff “Objects” to the DA's Motion to Quash. Even if this document had been formatted and entitled properly, Plaintiff served it by regular mail, which violates Code Civ. Proc...
2019.2.27 Motion to Set Aside Default Dismissal 879
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...to bring the instant motion. Moreover, the motion is untimely pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b), and the Court has no jurisdiction to consider it. Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36. Even if Mr. Thompson had standing and the motion was timely, it would be denied for lack of merit. Mr. Thompson provides no explanation as to what “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” resulted in entry of the Court's July...
2019.2.27 Motion to Compel Further Responses 974
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...nterrogatories (Set One) within 14 days of this order. Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED. Allstate's opposition does not respond to the arguments presented in the moving papers, and it is not supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. Allstate's response is also deficient because the attached exhibits are not what they are purported to be in its memorandum in opposition. In any case, Defendant has demonstrated it is ent...
2019.2.27 Motion to Change Venue 909
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...multiple counties, not just where the defendant(s) reside. In breach of contract cases, venue is proper, inter alia, where the contract work is to be performed. Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a). On a motion to change venue, the moving party bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary to justify a change of venue. Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1666. The Complaint here alleges the contract was formed in, and perfo...
2019.2.26 Motion to Strike 282
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.26
Excerpt: ...Plaintiff leave to amend one cause of action. Plaintiff then filed a TAC five days after the statutory deadline for filing an amended pleading had expired. Under the circumstances, including the absence of any compelling showing of prejudice, the Court will exercise its discretion and accept Plaintiff's late‐filed TAC. § 473(a)(1). To the extent the County contends the Court lacks discretion to do so, the Court disagrees. Harlan v. Department ...
2019.2.26 Motion to File Amended Complaint 701
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.26
Excerpt: ...and Bonnie Rodemeyer (“Plaintiffs”) to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants Professional Computing Solutions, Inc. dba Silicon Segway and Jim Heldberg (“Defendants”) ask that this motion be denied for failure to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a). While Plaintiffs did not state what allegations are proposed to be deleted and amended, by page, paragraph and line number, Plaintiff...
2019.2.26 Motion to Vacate 233
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.26
Excerpt: ...t retained at the time the default was entered cannot be the proximate cause of the entry of default under 473(b).” In that case, the defendants' counsel was not contacted until after default was entered on June 4. Although counsel was retained in August, counsel failed to move to set aside the default before judgment was entered in September. The court concluded that counsel's conduct was not the proximate cause of entry of default because he ...
2019.2.25 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Monetary Sanctions 199
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.25
Excerpt: ...de full and complete responses within 14 days of this order. To the extent Newsweek has already provided the information sought, it may respond accordingly. Structure asserts that Newsweek has waived objections for failure to respond to the discovery requests by October 2. The court agrees. With respect to this issue, however, the court notes that Structure refused to grant any extension for responding to its discovery requests. Further, during t...
2019.2.22 Motion for Charging Order of Interests in LLCs 927
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...d on “the judgment debtor” and “all members” of the LLC in which the judgment debtor purportedly owns an interest. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 708.320(a).) The Proof of Service does not show that this motion was served on Judgment Debtor METAMINING, INC., or on any members of Spiro Mining, LLC, or Coal Creek, LLC. It shows service on the LLCs, but the statute requires service on the LLCs' “members.” This defect in service was pointed out i...
2019.2.22 Motion for Summary Adjudication 285
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...laintiff's objection to Defendant's purported attempt to file a moving Memorandum of Points and Authorities of excessive length by manipulating typeface size and line spacing. (Opp. P&A at 1 and n.1). The Court also notes that Plaintiff's extensive use of footnotes brings her Opposing brief to a word‐count nearly identical to that of Defendant. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to Issues 1, 2, and 3. A. Issue 1 – Damages 1. The...
2019.2.22 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment, Enter Another Judgment 251
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...x months. Second, defendant has not provided a proposed responsive pleading as required by the statute. Finally, defendant has not offered evidence to support a finding that the default was entered as a result of her mistake, surprise, inadvertence of excusable neglect. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling ...
2019.2.21 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 647
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.21
Excerpt: ...for breach of contract and negligence cannot be established, and Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of showing the existence of a triable issue of material fact. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Calvillo‐Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 735. Moving and opposing papers in a summary judgment motion must be supported by admissible evidence consisting of “affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, a...
2019.2.19 Motion for Summary Adjudication 076
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.19
Excerpt: ...led to comply with CRC 3.1350(b), which requires that “[T]he specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” Defendants have not repeated the noticed issues verbatim in their separate statement. Further, Defendants have noticed and briefed issues, relating to Plaintiffs' c...
2019.2.19 Demurrer 244
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.19
Excerpt: ...ion in Plaintiff's complaint are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's complaint properly asserts accounting as an alternative theory to his cause of action for breach of contract. California recognizes a cause of action for constructive trust. Michaelian v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 50 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1114. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint within ten days of this order. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Co...
2019.2.19 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award 876
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.19
Excerpt: ...confirming that Petitioner may install and use a second hoist at the south side location originally approved by the Harbor Master on March 28, 2014, this issue is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner acknowledges in its moving papers that at their October 17, 2018 Board meeting, “Respondents voted on a resolution authorizing Three Captains to install its second hoist and directing their General Manager to take all actions necessary to give effect to the ...
2019.2.15 Demurrer 424
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.15
Excerpt: ... resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. The declaration of Candace Shirley states only that a letter was sent to plaintiff's counsel. Consequently, the hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to March 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in the Law and Motion Department so that the parties may meet and confer. The demurring party is required to file, no later than 7 days prior to the new hearing date, a code‐compliant declaration stating either (1)...
2019.2.15 Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment 142
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.15
Excerpt: ... a default or default judgment entered against him or her as a result of his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. In this case plaintiff is seeking relief from a default judgment entered in its favor, not any judgment or order entered against it. Furthermore, there is no showing that the default was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise of excusable neglect. The declaration of Nichol Alan De Guzman merely states th...
2019.2.15 Motion to Fix Amount of Attorney's Fees 758
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.15
Excerpt: ...hus should not be allowed to recover attorney's fees for their time.” Opposition, p.4. Cross‐Defendant NAS, however, is not an attorney and did not represent itself. Cross‐complainant provides no authority supporting apportionment of fees between attorney and non‐attorney parties when those parties jointly file and prevail on an antiSLAPP motion to strike. See Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal. App. 4th 510, 525, 37 Cal. Rptr....
2019.2.14 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 841
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.14
Excerpt: ...iled to provide the court with evidence of an executed or otherwise binding agreement between the parties. Instead, Plaintiff has provided a one‐page “Membership Application and Agreement” that appears to be an application for an account with Plaintiff. Notably, the application makes no reference to a line of credit. Plaintiff also relies on (1) an unsigned “Open End Loan Plan Agreement and Truth in Lending Disclosure,” and (2) monthly ...
2019.2.8 Demurrer 831
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.8
Excerpt: ...ourt previously sustained Ocwen's demurrer to these causes of action and provided Plaintiffs with the opportunity to amend the complaint to plead facts sufficient to state a claim. The court's order provided, in pertinent part, as follows: As to the First Cause of Action for violation of Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. This claim is predicated on the alleged HBOR statutory violations and common law claims a...
2019.2.8 Motion to Strike 831
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.8
Excerpt: ...rike that portion of the SAC setting forth a cause of action for negligence is GRANTED. Paragraphs 87 through 107 of the second amended complaint are hereby stricken. Ocwen contends the entire SAC should be stricken because it was not timely filed under operation of CRC 3.1320. The court notes, however, there is a split of authority as to whether Plaintiffs must file a noticed motion seeking permission to file the late pleading, or whether the co...
2019.2.7 Motion to Seal Exhibit, for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 904
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.7
Excerpt: ...otion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication is GRANTED pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 2.550(d). Based on the Motion, the document is confidential pursuant to the terms of the parties' discovery stipulation; although it was submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication, it had limited bearing on the legal issues necessary to adjudication of the motion; and based on those facts, the c...
2019.2.5 Demurrer 944
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.5
Excerpt: ...om its making. (Civ. Code sect. 1624, subd. (a)(1).) However, if it is merely unlikely that it will be so performed, or the period of performance is indefinite, the statute does not apply. (Blaustein v. Burton (1970) 9 Cal. App. 3d 161, 185.) The statute of frauds applies only to contracts that “cannot” be performed within one year. (Hollywood Motion Picture Equip. Co. v. Furer (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 184, 187.) Even though a promise may not by its...
2019.2.5 Motion to Set Aside Default, Judgment, to Quash Service of Summons 199
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.5
Excerpt: ...NIED. Defendant brings this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, or alternatively, under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d). Defendant seeks to set aside the default and default judgment for possession entered on March 7, 2017, and the default judgment for money entered on May 8, 2018. Plaintiff argues that the motion is untimely because Defendant failed to bring it within 180 days after service on Defendant of written notice t...
2019.2.4 Demurrer 321
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.2.4
Excerpt: ... a married spouse of the injured plaintiff or to his or her registered domestic partner. (CACI 3920; Fam. Code sect. 297.5, subd. (c). Plaintiff's reliance on the Butcher case is unpersuasive; the Supreme Court rejected Butcher for the proposition cited by Plaintiff. (See Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, 277, 279‐80.) Plaintiff LOPEZ does not allege that she is the spouse or registered domestic partner of Plaintiff ALFARO. Plaintiff LOPEZ...

2505 Results

Per page

Pages