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

2491 Results

Location: San Mateo x
2019.11.22 Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings 143
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.22
Excerpt: ...d therefore Plaintiff and South Bay Colma LLC are ordered to arbitrate the claims asserted against South Bay Colma LLC in Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff raised a number of arguments as to why the arbitration agreement is unenforceable. First, Plaintiff claims that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. The party opposing arbitration has the burden of proving that the arbitration provision is unconscionable. (Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2...
2019.11.22 Application for Right to Attach Order, for Issuance of Writ of Attachment 221
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.22
Excerpt: ...‐115, which contains all the necessary advisements pursuant to Section 484.050. Although use of the form is optional, Plaintiff's notice includes none of the required information. Second, and more significantly, Plaintiff's complaint alleges breach of contract by Defendant Ye. Plaintiff, however, seeks to attach property owned by Defendant Chen and the Chenye Irrevocable Gift Trust. Plaintiff alleges the property was fraudulently transferred to...
2019.11.22 Motion to Quash 767
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.22
Excerpt: ... California. Further, since Blue Bird has no contacts with the state, the Plaintiff has not shown that his claim arises out of or is related to such contacts. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 US 462, 477‐78.) The emails attached to Plaintiff's opposing declaration are not authenticated. However, even if the emails were admitted into evidence, they do not show that Blue Bird had purposeful contacts with California. A plaintiff is gener...
2019.11.21 Motion to Stay 913
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.21
Excerpt: ...ircuit Court (Waukesha County), which by all appearances involves substantially the same subject matter. Both Complaints seek a judicial declaration regarding the validity/enforceability of the parties' Consulting Agreement. As the moving party here, Matrix has the burden of proving the parties' dispute would be more appropriately tried elsewhere (in Wisconsin). Plaintiff Time Traveller's choice of forum will not be disturbed unless the Court is ...
2019.11.13 Motion to Compel Further Responses 454
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.13
Excerpt: ...ttached to the Request for Production” is deficient. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783–84.) Plaintiff shall supplement its response to set forth specific responsive facts. Interrogatories 112.2 through 112.5. A response that merely points to another discovery response is deficient. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 783–84.) Further, as set forth above, the response to Interrogatory 112.1 (to which this response...
2019.11.12 Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings 519
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.12
Excerpt: ...ation Agreement. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the arbitration. Defendant Dick's has established the existence of an arbitration agreement, and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the Agreement under CCP §1281.2. Plaintiff does not dispute that he signed a binding Arbitration Agreement with Defendant Dick's Sporting Goods or that the claims against Dick's are within the scope of the Agreement. Rather, Plain...
2019.11.1 Motion to Enforce Settlement 203
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.1
Excerpt: ...aning of the settlement terms agreed to on the record on June 28, 2019. The court should reject the County's proposed Paragraph 17 as an improper attempt to effectively convert the “no professional publicity” term the parties agreed to into a “confidentiality” term that was neither bargained for nor agreed to. The court should instead construe the agreement to “no professional publicity” to prohibit plaintiff and her counsel from util...
2019.11.1 Motion to Compel Compliance with Agreement to Produce Docs 797
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.1
Excerpt: ...o Compel Plaintiff Triple Net Companies, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to Comply with Agreement to Produce Documents, is ruled on as follows: (1) Defendants originally sought to Compel Plaintiff's Compliance with the Agreement to Produce Documents in response to KComm's Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Specifically, Defendants' Motion sought compliance with Request nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 15‐17, 19‐23, 25‐30, 32‐43, 49 and 54. The court con...
2019.10.31 Motion for Summary Judgment 975
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.31
Excerpt: ...e as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c). A defendant has met the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2). Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to plai...
2019.10.29 Demurrer 337
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.29
Excerpt: ...t's duty of loyalty, which if proven would be a fiduciary breach. This claim would be subject to a 4‐ year statute of limitations. Plaintiff knew of the dual agency in October 2015 (Moving P&A at 16; FAC para. 58), which is less than four years before the Complaint filed. Since at least one alleged claim is not time‐barred, the demurrer fails to dispose of the causes of action. 2. Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action. Demurrer is SUSTAIN...
2019.10.28 Motion to Admit Evidence of Plea of Nolo Contendere to a Felony 201
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.28
Excerpt: ... motion earlier. However, under Rule 2.21, any response to an in limine motion may be filed as late as the first appearance in the Department of the Presiding Judge “for trial assignment.” Rule 2.21 implies that in limine motions are brought to the trial judge, not the Law & Motion Department. Plaintiff's argument that an early ruling would eliminate the need of conducting discovery (Reply at 2:26‐28) lacks merit. A plea of nolo contendre �...
2019.10.28 Motion to Compel Responses, Request for Monetary Sanctions 007
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.28
Excerpt: ...Interrogatory No. 12.1 (Set One). Although the motion is not captioned as a motion to compel a further response per Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, that is the motion's clear intent, and both parties treat the motion as such, and thus the Court deems the motion as seeking to compel a further response to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatory No. 12.1. The motion is GRANTED. The LLC members' names and contact information is discoverable A civil litigant's ri...
2019.10.25 Motion for Summary Judgment 985
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.25
Excerpt: ...hey repeatedly refer to the moving Defendants collectively, despite the fact that Defendants are alleged to have different roles in causing the incident in question. Any differences in the analysis with respect to each Defendant is noted below. Gross Negligence The moving Defendants contend, first, that Plaintiff's causes of action for gross negligence must fail “as there is insufficient evidence as a matter of law to establish any triable issu...
2019.10.25 Motion to Compel Further Responses 501
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.25
Excerpt: ...on. If Plaintiff does not comply, then the Court will strike the motion instead. (Code of Civ. Proc. Sect. 128.7 (“unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party”).) If Plaintiff cures the omission, then the Court will rule as set forth below. 2. Regarding Defendant's citation to People v. Investco Mgmt. & Dev. the Court reminds Defendants' c...
2019.10.23 Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint 541
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.10.23
Excerpt: ... CONTINUED to January 17, 2020 at 9 a.m. in the Law & Motion Department to allow Plaintiff time to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Defendants' alternative Motion to Dismiss on grounds of inconvenient forum (forum non conveniens) is DENIED, for the reasons stated below. Personal jurisdiction is determined by evidence, not allegations Without belaboring the issue, the Court notes that when a Defendant challenges the Court's personal jurisdiction ...
2019.10.9 Motion to Lift Stay 296
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Greenberg, Susan
Hearing Date: 2019.10.9
Excerpt: ...tani et. al.'s express request. See 8‐16‐19 Minute Order. Dattani et. al. has repeatedly represented that this civil case should follow the criminal case. See 8‐22‐19 Wood Decl., ¶6 (“In Dec. 26, 2018 Defendants moved to continue trial, in accord with Defendants understanding that everyone agrees the criminal matter must proceed before the civil matters.”). The criminal case has not yet resolved. Further, Dattani et. al. has not iden...
2019.10.8 Motion for Recovery of Attorney Fees 712
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.8
Excerpt: ...hose acts do not constitute “binding the company” or “executing an instrument.” The motion does not demonstrate that Plaintiffs acted in contravention of paragraph 7.10. The motion lacks merit also because Paragraph 7.10 does not entitle a Member to attorney's fees in the present context. The purported “action by the Member” is the signing and filing of the Complaint. However, there is no claim based on that “action by the Member.�...
2019.10.8 Application for Right to Attach Order and Prejudgment Writ of Attachment 182
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.8
Excerpt: ...t is GRANTED‐IN‐PART, in the amount of $50,979, which appears to be a conservative estimate of the amount owed. Plaintiff's Application satisfies the requirements of §483.010(a), namely, (1) the claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued, (2) Plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim (see Code of Civ. Proc. § 481.190, “more probable than not…”), (3) the attachment is not s...
2019.10.8 Motion for Summary Adjudication 393
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.8
Excerpt: ...ailure to Pay Wages (Bonus) As noted by Plaintiff, the elements of a cause of action for failure to pay wages are (1) that plaintiff performed work for defendant; (2) that defendant owes plaintiff wages under the terms of the employment; and (3) the amount of unpaid wages. CACI 2700. According to Plaintiff, he has established each of these elements as a matter of law. Plaintiff contends he was entitled to wages pursuant to the terms of the Novemb...
2019.10.7 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 681
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.7
Excerpt: ...riginally named as a defendant in the Complaint, was dismissed from this action without prejudice after he brought a Motion to Quash based on lack of personal jurisdiction. (See court's August 21, 2018 order.) Plaintiff then sought leave to amend to file a proposed First Amended Complaint to add allegations to support that Grecu is the alter ego of Defendant Interstates Vanlines, LLC (“IVL”). Plaintiff's motion was denied without prejudice. (...
2019.10.7 Motion for Summary Judgment 901
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.7
Excerpt: ...ct and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c). A defendant has met the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2). Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show that a tr...
2019.10.4 Motion for Summary Judgment 018
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.4
Excerpt: ...Defendant expressly agreed in writing that he would pay the County for the treatment and services in accordance with the regular rates and terms of the Medical Center. UMF #3, 4. The County performed its obligations pursuant to the written agreements. UMF # 2. Defendant failed to pay for the medical treatment and services rendered to him, and the County has been damaged in the amount of 22,041.06. UMF # 5‐11. With respect to the claim for servi...
2019.10.3 Motion to Seal Exhibits 987
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.3
Excerpt: ...y finds this matter involves confidential business plans, valuation and financing strategies, negotiation and collaboration tactics, internal market research, and private corporate structure and financial information. The overriding interest supports sealing the record. The Court expressly finds there is an overriding interest in protecting Defendant's information from public disclosure. A substantial probability exists that the overriding intere...
2019.10.3 Motion to Compel Verified Responses 452
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.3
Excerpt: ...Defendants contend the motion is moot because they provided signed verifications on September 3rd and 4th. Defendants, however, cite no authority in support of their contention that the motion is moot. There is, however, authority to the contrary. In Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 408 (2007), the court concluded that untimely service of discovery responses does not deprive the trial cour...
2019.10.3 Motion for Attorney Fees as Sanctions 294
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.10.3
Excerpt: ...Civ. Proc. § 1008(b). On 10‐10‐18, Plaintiff dismissed its entire case against BJ Interstate. Thereafter, on 4‐5‐ 19, BJ Interstate moved for sanctions against Plaintiff under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5, asserting the same arguments it now rehashes here. BJ Interstate argued in the prior motion, inter alia, that Plaintiff knew or should have known from the day he filed this case, and certainly from the time Plaintiff filed his First Amende...

2491 Results

Per page

Pages