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
2019.12.17 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 620
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.17
Excerpt: ...t (1) Plaintiff is limited to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation benefits, and that under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689, Plaintiff is precluded from recovering against KENMARK, the hirer of a contractor, and (2) the evidence does not support the “retained control” exception to Privette. Privette does not apply to this case because Plaintiff's employer, CBC, is not the contractor whose negligence is alleged to hav...
2019.12.16 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 752
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.16
Excerpt: ... Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Courts apply such a liberal policy at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) If the motion to amend is timely made and granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action. (...
2019.12.12 Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens 786
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.12
Excerpt: ...tion that an equitable lien survived the statute of limitations bar is contrary to current law, Cal. Civ. Code § 882.030, and Plaintiff fails to address all evidentiary issues concerning Mr. Goldstein's Will. Moreover, Plaintiff's assertion that Plaintiff and Option One lacked actual knowledge of the vesting issue does not refute the evidence demonstrating that Option One was on notice that Defendant was a record owner of the subject property as...
2019.12.12 Motion for Terminating Sanctions 368
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.12
Excerpt: ...DIN‐PART and DENIED‐IN‐PART. The request for terminating and issue sanctions is DENIED. The request for evidentiary and monetary sanctions is GRANTED‐IN‐PART, as set forth below. These consolidated cases arise from a cancelled real estate sales transaction involving the Love Cross‐Complainants' property in East Palo Alto. After the prospective sellers (the Loves) refused to sell the property as contemplated by the Listing Agreement, t...
2019.12.12 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 752
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.12
Excerpt: ...yd J. DeMartini (“DeMartini”) for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, on the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Fuentebella Enterprises, LLC (“Fuentebella”) is ruled on as follows: (1) DeMartini's and Fuentebella's Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED. (2) For purposes of a motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, a defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action ...
2019.12.10 Application for Writ of Attachment 235
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.12.10
Excerpt: ...se attachment is purely a statutory remedy, it requires strict construction with the statutory requirements. Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1107; Code Civ. Proc. § 482.030 (the Legislature directed the Judicial Council to promulgate forms to implement the attachment law). First, Plaintiff did not serve Notice of the Application and hearing using Judicial Council Form AT‐115 (“Notice of Applicat...
2019.11.26 Demurrer 372
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.26
Excerpt: ...N should not be part of this lawsuit. Defendants CHANG and CHEN did not enter into any contracts with Plaintiff CAVESTONE, did not make any representations to Plaintiff CAVESTONE that induced justifiable reliance, and did not benefit individually from Plaintiff CAVESTONE.” Reply., p.1‐2. Plaintiff, however, has alleged an alter‐ego theory of liability. According to Plaintiff's complaint, “Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert wit...
2019.11.26 Motion for Attorney's Fees 047
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.26
Excerpt: ...8.50. Per Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(10)(A), fees are recoverable as an element of costs where authorized by contract. The Settlement Agreement at issue here includes a fee provision. See 10‐8‐19 Salassi Decl., Ex. A, § 7.12. The claimed fees appear to be sufficiently documented/supported and reasonable. See 10‐8‐19 Decl. of Hannah Salassi and Ex. D‐G. Defendants do not challenge the amount of claimed fees (they do not challenge the ...
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...
2019.11.22 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...
2019.11.21 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...
2019.11.8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 712
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.8
Excerpt: ...r Dismissal on Judicial Council Form CIV‐110, which purports to dismiss the “Entire action of all parties and all causes of action.” The Dismissal was entered that same date, as requested. This Dismissal has caused confusion, however, since only Plaintiff Min Xie signed it. In general, the filing of a dismissal has immediate effect, rendering subsequent proceedings void. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Humboldt Loaders, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d ...
2019.11.7 Motion to File Settlement Agreement Under Seal 255
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.7
Excerpt: ...on to approve dismissal of the PAGA claim includes a supporting declaration of Plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey Curtiss, which refers to the Settlement Agreement, but does not include a redacted version of the document as an exhibit. The present motion to seal includes a supporting declaration of Mr. Curtiss, which states only that the Settlement Agreement will be lodged “as Exhibit A to this Declaration.” The Exhibit A is a blank document. Since...
2019.11.7 Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint 192
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.7
Excerpt: ...he property at 74 New Montgomery is the individual Defendants' “usual mailing address” or “usual place of abode” pursuant to CCP § 415.20. Plaintiff relies on her own declaration, which states that the property “has also been used as [Mr. Saito's] personal residence and corporate office” and that “Mr. Okada has been working and residing at PROPERTY while acting as Saito's business associate in State of California.” Smith Decl., �...
2019.11.5 Motion for Summary Judgment 987
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.5
Excerpt: ...anted as to the first cause of action. It is undisputed that, at the time of the 2015 merger, Plaintiff RAI held no shares of H2 Wellbeing Oy. (UMF 8.) Plaintiff argues that “H2H never issued agreed upon shares to RAI, but agreed in writing to issue such shares in the 2011 Agreement and in its modifications” (Opp. to UMF 8) and that “H2H provided assurances that the matter of unissued shares would be addressed.” (Decl. of Rapakko para. 10...
2019.11.5 Demurrer 718
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.5
Excerpt: ... 10‐23‐19 Opposition brief was filed on behalf of Ely and Sonia Tangonan, despite its reference to “Cross‐Complainant Mary Pablo,” since no such person is a party to the case. Per the Proof of Service, the Opposition brief was not served on Wells Fargo, the demurring party. For this reason, and because the Opposition does not specifically address the asserted causes of action or any of Wells Fargo's arguments (it merely recites general ...
2019.11.5 Demurrers 718
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Davis, Leland
Hearing Date: 2019.11.5
Excerpt: ... TO AMEND as to all asserted claims. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e). The Court assumes the 10‐23‐19 Opposition brief was filed on behalf of Ely and Sonia Tangonan, despite its reference to “Cross‐Complainant Mary Pablo,” since no such person is a party to the case. The Court notes that except for a couple references to the res judicata defense, the Opposition does not specifically address any of the asserted claims, nor Barrett Daffin's a...
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...
2019.10.8 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...
2019.10.8 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...

234 Results

Per page

Pages