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

77 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: San Mateo x
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R x
2024.03.08 Demurrer to FAC, Motion to Strike 871
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.03.08
Excerpt: ...se (Annie Sammut, Cody Sammu t, and Artichoke Joe's) filed demurrers to Plaintiff's FAC. In an Order dated 1.31.24, the Court ruled on Cody Sammut's and Artichoke Joe's demurrer. Having reviewed the briefing here, the Court finds that the issues and arguments raised are substantially the same as those raised in the prior demurrers. The Court finds no basis to diverge from its previous ruling, as further explained below. Defendant's 10 -5 -23 ...
2024.03.08 Demurrer to FAC 051
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.03.08
Excerpt: ... Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 774.) Plaintiffs shall file and serve a Second Amended Complaint no later than March 18, 2024. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendants provided the improper addres s for the hearing. Department 24 is located at the Hall of Justice and Records, Courtroom 2F, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California 94063. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 [notice “...
2024.03.01 Motion to Confirm Prevailing Party, for Expert Witness Costs, to Strike and Tax Costs 801
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.03.01
Excerpt: ...TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Expert Witness Costs is DENIED. Plaintiff is the prevailing party. However, for the reasons stated in granting in part Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs, which is also on this Law & Motion calendar, the P laintiff did not obtain a more favorable result than its CCP §998 offer and is therefore not entitled to these costs. Plaintiff's CCP §998 offer was $160,000. The jury's verdict was $147,119.3...
2024.03.01 Motion for Terminating Sanctions 041
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.03.01
Excerpt: ...o Coi t's form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one. The Court also ordered that Plaintiff pay $645.00 in sanctions within 30 days of notice of the Order. Plaintiff failed to comply. In a te ntative order issued on March 24, 2023, the Court denied Coit's unopposed first motion for terminating sanctions. In a tentative order issued October 17, 2023, the Court denied without p...
2024.02.23 Motion for Summary Adjudication 544
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.23
Excerpt: ... Relief is DENIED. The Court's tentative ruling from December 28, 2023, as modified, is restated here. The controversy involves the Opperman's October 15, 2021 application to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit ADU on their property, which cross defendants denied. The project is referred to interchangeably in the Cross- Complaint as the “ADU” and the Opperman Application.” (Cross- Complaint ¶¶7 and 19.) The Opperman's Fifth Cause of Action ...
2024.02.23 Motion for Sanctions 148
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.23
Excerpt: ...a nd DENIED IN PART. Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC shall pay $10,000 to Plaintiffs' counsel no later than March 8, 2024. Plaintiffs move here for terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions, and a finding of contempt with re spect to Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC (“SVRV”). They contend that sanctions and contempt are warranted by Bragg's and SVRV's refusal to comply with the C...
2024.02.23 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 419
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.23
Excerpt: ...s of action a gainst Stiles and second Cross -Defendant Johnson (“Johnson”). In short, the Cross- Complaint alleges that Homa held title to the Ferrari at all times, including when it was sold for $200,000.00, but was forced by the Cross -Defendants to pay $175,000 and var ious other sums of money because CrossDefendants were upset that the car had been sold. According to the Cross -Complaint, Johnson told Homa that she should pay the money t...
2024.02.23 Demurrer 949
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.23
Excerpt: ...te of Li mitations Where a complaint shows on its face that the cause of action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, it is subject to demurrer. Sirott v. Latts (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 923, 928. Here, the FAC alleges that Plaintiffs purchased the Subje ct Property from the Defendants on July 15, 2019. FAC ¶11. It further alleges that Plaintiffs discovered the storm drain by chance in June 2022 when they were doing landscaping on the S...
2024.02.16 Demurrer to FAC 949
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.16
Excerpt: ..., inter a lia, the following causes of action (“COAs”) against Grove: private nuisance under Civil Code § 3479, trespass under Civil Code § 3334, negligence, injunctive relief, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7000. Defendant's demurrer is SUSTAINED -IN -PART wit hout leave to amend OVERRULED -IN -PA R T. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, raising issues of law but not fact regarding the form or content of the opp...
2024.02.16 Demurrer 597
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.16
Excerpt: ... 430.10 CALIF. RULE OF CT., RULE 3.1320] TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Wayne Podesta's, Gary Podesta, Jr.'s; and Podesta Family Investments II, LLC's (collectively, “Defendants”) 11 -7 -23 Demurrer to Plaintiffs' 9 -21 -23 First Amended Complaint (FAC) is SU STA INED-IN -PART without leave to amend and OVERRULED -INPART. Defendants' 11 -7 -23 Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is GRANTED as follows: As to the document(s) filed in prior court p...
2024.02.16 Demurrer to FAC 181
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.16
Excerpt: ...are reason ably subject to dispute by CCSF and irrelevant. (Evid. C. §452(h); AL Holding Co. v. O'Brien & Hicks, Inc. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313 fn. 2 [“a court must decline to take judicial notice of material that is not relevant”] (internal citation omitted).) Accordingly, the Court has not considered Plaintiffs' extrinsic evidence. (See Ion Equipment Corporation v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868.) This case is brought by Plaintiff...
2024.02.16 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 395
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.16
Excerpt: ...wers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” Under Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there is no triable issue of any material fact. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to make a prima facie showing that there is a triable issue of material fact. Here, t...
2024.02.16 Motion to Compel Responses, for Terminating Sanctions 388
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.16
Excerpt: ...ndant' s Request for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Set One (the “Motions”). These are the fourth and fifth discovery motions brought by Defendant and Plaintiff has already been sanctioned $18,005.40, none of which has been paid. Defendant's Motions and requ est for terminating sanctions are GRANTED and the matter is ordered DISMISSED with prejudice. The proof of service (“POS”) for the Motions indicates they were sent to Plaintif...
2024.02.16 Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 199
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.16
Excerpt: ...pe r annum of $28,554.79, and costs of $1,383.85 for a total award of $54,938.64. (Aug. 11, 2023 Default Judgment.) Schreiner moves here to set aside and vacate that judgment or to strike the prejudgment interest portion of it. Defendant contends that the aw ard of interest was improper under subdivision (a) of Civil Code §3287, which entitles a prevailing party to prejudgment interest on damages that are certain. (C.C. §3287(a).) However, as P...
2024.02.09 Motion to Vacate Judgment 990
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.09
Excerpt: ...Agreements serving as the basis of the judgment are void and unenforceable” on those bases. (Motion at p. 8 (emphasis added); see also Reply at p. 1, fn. 1.) Nevertheless, the only issue before the Court is whether the Judgment entered by the Honorable Robert Foiles on March 19, 2021, is void on its face. Noting this limitation on the Court's authority is important because the Motion asks the Court to go beyond simply voiding the Judgment and t...
2024.02.09 Motion to Strike TAC, to Dismiss TAC 794
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.09
Excerpt: ...P §§435, 436, 581(f)(2).) Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code Sect. 452(d).) Defendants' unopposed Motion to Strike Plainti¯s' TAC is GRANTED. (CCP §§435 & 436; Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) As set forth in Defendants' moving papers, the Court's 8-31-23 Order sustaining Defendants' demurrer to Plainti¯s' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) set a deadline for Plai...
2024.02.09 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation 381
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.09
Excerpt: ...tion Act (the “FAA”) covers at least some of the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and that a party may properly move to compel arbitration of claims asserted in an existing lawsuit. Rather, the dispute here is limited to whether and the extent to which the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “EFAA”) permits Bruschi to elect to proceed in court on his claims. The EFAA...
2024.02.09 Motion to Cancel and Exonerate Bond, for Fees and Costs, to Deposit Funds, to Dismiss 292
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.09
Excerpt: ... (“Envirobuilt”). Gray now moves pursuant to CCP §§386.5 and 386.6 to deposit the sum of the bond with the Court, to be discharged from further liability for the sum, to be dismissed from the action, and for its fees and costs. Gray's motion is hereby GRANTED with modiÞcations to the requested costs and attorneys' fees set forth herein. “Where the only relief sought against one of the defendants is the payment of a stated amount of money...
2024.02.02 Motion to Strike FAC 530
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.02
Excerpt: ... states, on the caption page, that the Feb. 2 hearing on this Motion to Strike will take place in Dept. 21 at 9 a.m., whereas the body of the Notice (the next page) states that the Feb. 2 hearing will take place in Dept. 24 at 2 p.m. Thus, the Notice provides incorrect information. The hearing is 2.2.24 @ 9:00 a.m. in D24. Defendants' 1.26.24 “Opposition to the Declaration of Christine Tour Sarkissian,” in which Defendants ask the Court to st...
2024.02.02 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Monetary Sanctions 630
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.02
Excerpt: ... (“CPQ”) and Cross-complainant David Espie's Motion to Compel Cross- defendant The Chugh Firm, PC's (hereafter “Chugh”) Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set Two, and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Cross-defendant Chugh shall serve code-compliant further responses to requests nos. 2021, 28–30, 37, 59–82, 84– 87, and 90–99 no later than February 16, 2024. Upon receipt of responses to reques...
2024.02.02 Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions 653
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.02.02
Excerpt: ...el, noting that Plainti¯'s objections and arguments were meritless, appeared to have been made in bad faith, and were unreasonable. The Court ordered Plainti¯ to supplement his responses to certain special interrogatories, and also ordered that Plainti¯ pay $2,000 in monetary sanctions to Defendant within twenty days of its Order. (Order Re: Motion to Compel, signed September 14, 2023.) Defendant now moves for evidentiary and monetary sanct...
2024.01.26 Motion to Strike 949
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.01.26
Excerpt: ...— first sentence alleging malice; • 947 — last sentence related to attorney fees; and • Prayer for punitive damages, p. 12, 93 CCP S 436 empowers the court to, upon moton or sua sponte, strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, as well as all or any part of the pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law, rules of court, or an order of the court. On a motion to strike, the Court construes th...
2024.01.26 Motion to Compel Further Responses 630
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.01.26
Excerpt: ... Espie's Motion to Compel Cross-defendant The Chugh Firm, PC's (hereafter "Chugh") Further Responses and Document Production in Connecton with Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Cross-defendant Chugh shall serve code-compliant further responses as set forth herein no later than February 9, 2024. Upon receipt of responses to requests for production, the propounding part...
2024.01.26 Demurrer 496
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.01.26
Excerpt: ...at least two choices to the Court's Clerk for the Court to choose from. In order to comply with CCP the demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the follovnng: (A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer. (B) That the party who file...
2024.01.19 Motion to Strike 949
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2024.01.19
Excerpt: ... that Plaintiffs' real property in San Carlos was damaged due to flooding, allegedly caused and exacerbated by the actions of the collective Defendants including Grove. As to Grove, Plaintiffs allege that he engaged in "construction activty in the vicinity of Canyon Vista Avenue in late 2022 and continuing through the month of January 2023. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that Grove blocked numerous storm drains operated b...

77 Results

Per page

Pages