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
2019.3.1 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...
2019.3.1 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...
2019.2.28 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 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...
2019.2.27 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 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 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...
2019.2.26 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 ...
2019.2.26 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...
2019.2.25 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 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 ...
2019.2.22 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 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...
2019.2.21 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 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 ...
2019.2.19 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...
2019.2.8 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...

234 Results

Per page

Pages