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

234 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: San Mateo x
Judge: Davis, Leland x
2019.9.13 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 646
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.13
Excerpt: ...dgment or adjudication, the court considers all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, and views such evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843‐856. Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion are normally resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Id. As to the 10‐17‐18 First Amended Complaint's (F...
2019.9.11 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings 073
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.11
Excerpt: ...Purchase Agreement. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the arbitration. Defendants have established the existence of an arbitration agreement, and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the agreement under CCP § 1281.2. Plaintiffs' first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are jointly asserted against Defendants Lurline and Jaojoco. Each of the causes of action arises from the same transaction governed by t...
2019.9.11 Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate Default Judgment 108
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.9.11
Excerpt: ... the face of the record that the judgment should not have been entered; however, a judgment valid on its face but void for improper service is governed by analogy to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 and therefore relief in the same action must be sought no later than 2 years after entry of the default judgment. (See Rogers v Silverman (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1114, 1121‐ 1122.) Defendant contends here that the judgment is void because he was ...
2019.8.30 Motion for Summary Judgment 426
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.30
Excerpt: ..., but also “prejudgment interest in the amount and at the rate provided by law.” (See Complaint, Prayer, 2:21.) Plaintiff presents no evidence as to the amount of interest sought. Further, Plaintiff has not presented admissible evidence to establish all the elements of an account stated, including that Defendant JBJ Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) owed Plaintiff money from previous financial transactions and that Plaintiff and Defendant agre...
2019.8.29 Motion to Strike Complaint 501
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.29
Excerpt: ...ant moves to strike the SAC on the ground that Plaintiffs are no longer represented by counsel, and cannot represent themselves in propria persona because Plaintiffs are an LLC and trustees of a trust. A court may strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (C.C.P. § 436(b).) Defendant fails to show that the SAC was “not drawn or filed" in ...
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 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 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 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...
2019.8.19 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...
2019.8.16 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...
2019.8.9 Motion to Seal 369
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.9
Excerpt: ...of the subject documents at the time the motion is made. (See CRC Rule 2.551(b)(4).) No documents are lodged under seal with this motion or RPM's motion for summary judgment. The motion fails to comply with the requirement that redacted public versions of the documents be filed. (Id. Rule 2.551(b)(5).) No redacted versions are filed. The court cannot determine whether the proposed redactions are sufficiently narrow. (See Rule 2.550(d) (sealing mu...
2019.8.9 Motion to Quash Service of Summons, to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment 452
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.9
Excerpt: .... However, Defendant does not dispute that she was personally served with the summons and complaint on May 22, 2019. Accordingly, the court finds there are no grounds for granting Defendant's motion to quash service. Alternatively, Defendant seeks to set aside the default and default judgment on the basis of mistake and excusable neglect. According to Defendant, her failure to respond was due to the fact that she has a brain injury and cannot rea...
2019.8.8 Motion to Consolidate Cases and for Injunction of Unlawful Detainer 502
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...�� namely, whether the nature of his option to exercise a lease extension was fraudulently misrepresented to him – and because it would promote judicial economy. He further contends that consolidation would “avoid the potential for irreparable injury.” According to Mr. Nguyen, “If the business is summarily evicted, at the least, both Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Tran will lose their only source of income and health insurance, and suffer irreparable...
2019.8.8 Demurrer 501
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...ur to them. However, California requires that affirmative defenses be pleaded with ultimate facts. Demurrer is sustained because the affirmative defenses plead only legal theories, but not any ultimate facts. Defendants argue that the facts are set forth in the Cross‐complaint. Even if that were true, the allegations belong in the Answer. The case of Schaefer v. State Bar of California (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 739 does not support Defendants. Schaefer...
2019.8.8 Motion to Consolidate Cases and Injunction of Unlawful Detainer 585
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.8
Excerpt: ...tion to exercise a lease extension was fraudulently misrepresented to him – and because it would promote judicial economy. He further contends that consolidation would “avoid the potential for irreparable injury.” According to Mr. Nguyen, “If the business is summarily evicted, at the least, both Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Tran will lose their only source of income and health insurance, and suffer irreparable harm.” [MPA, p.12] Mr. Nguyen relies...
2019.8.6 Motion for Attorney Fees 664
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.6
Excerpt: ...f $25,737, plus a 2.0 multiplier, plus $1,206.15 in costs/expenses. The Court declines to apply a loadstar enhancement/multiplier. The Court finds no basis to conclude the case was complex or novel. It appears to have been a fairly routine consumer warranty/lemon law case. Complexity is judged in part by whether the case involved: 1) numerous pre‐trial motions raising novel issues; (2) a large number of witnesses and documents; (3) a large numb...
2019.8.6 Motion to Set Aside Default, Judgment 182
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.6
Excerpt: ...ts proposed answer within 5 days of this order. Defendant Adams claims that he sent the summons and complaint to an unnamed attorney in Santa Rosa. Mr. Adams indicates that he was too busy to follow up on his instructions that the attorney file an answer to the complaint. Based on the facts as set forth in Mr. Adams' declaration, it is questionable whether Mr. Adams exercised reasonable diligence in responding to the complaint. The court finds, h...
2019.8.5 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 342
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.8.5
Excerpt: ...ach of Express Warranty Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to assert a cause of action for breach of express warranty because Plaintiff has not alleged that the “latent defect” in the timing chain system manifested itself during the five‐year warranty period. According to Defendant, Plaintiff has alleged “no manifestation of the purported defect in the timing chain.” [MPA, p.4] Construing the complaint liberally, however, Plaintiff...
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...

234 Results

Per page

Pages