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

86 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: San Mateo x
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R x
2023.12.22 Demurrer to TAC 784
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.22
Excerpt: ...ourtroom 2F. Defendants' counsel's declaration fails to establish compliance with the meet and confer requirement under CCP 5430.41, which states in relevant part: (a) Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objecti...
2023.12.22 Demurrer 979
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.22
Excerpt: ...ed in the complaint. To be sure, the Reply make a new argument that the trade secret allegations are insufficient, but that's a new argument not properly before the court. Cf., High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 102, 112 n.2. (2) An intentional interference with contract is a wrong in and of ftself, and the complaint states that cause of action. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1130, 1142. The ...
2023.12.22 Application for Writ of Possession 320
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.22
Excerpt: ...ssion regarding a 2020 Kia that plaintiff allegedly wrongfully possesses. The court denied Budget's writ application on September 5, 2023. Budget now seeks another writ of possession over the same car in a nearly identical writ application filed October 10, 2023. This is a renewed motion under CCP 1008(b). Section 1008(b) requires a party bringing a renewed motion to submit an affidavit [or declaration] identifying new or different facts, circums...
2023.12.15 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 881
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.15
Excerpt: ...issues to be adjudicated and is supported by an 18-page Separate Statement of undisputed Material Facts. Plaintiffs' Opposing Separate Statement is more than three times as long and supported by 60 exhibits consuming more than 1,300 pages. Plaintiffs' Opposing Separate Statement does not further the purpose of the Separate Statement requirement, but rather hinders it. Plaintiffs' Opposing Separate Statement does not allow the Court to easily iden...
2023.12.15 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 304
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.15
Excerpt: ... Cory L Cooper ("Cooper"), a real estate agent who was associated with Defendant Dwell Realtors ("Dwell") at the time of the transaction, failed to properly obtain Mr. Driker's signature on the cancellation addendum. Plaintiff then decided again to sell the property in 2021 and hired Cooper, who was by then associated with Defendant Compass California II, Inc. ("Compass"), to facilitate the sale, again to Mr. Driker. Shortly after Plaintiff hired...
2023.12.15 Demurrer to FAC 906
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.15
Excerpt: ...ritten notice of the formal order. The First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") asserts two causes of action, for conversion and for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). Vinogradova demurs here to the second cause of action for IIED on the grounds of uncertainty and that fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc., S 430.10, subd. (e)—(f).) Vinogradova offered no argument in support of her specia...
2023.12.08 Motion for Trial Preference 148
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.08
Excerpt: ...il action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court finds both that the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, and that the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation. Section 35(a) "is mandatory and absolute in its applicaton in civil cases whenever the litigants are 70 years old." ...
2023.12.01 Motion to Set Aside Default, Judgment 546
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.01
Excerpt: ...ed on October 16, 2020, after failing to heed the summons purportedly served on him. (Oct. 16, 2020 Request for Entry of Default; see Sep. 21, 2020 Proof of Service of Summons by Substituted Service.) More than two years later, Plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Co. ("Scottsdale") requested a default judgment, and judgment was entered against McNulty in the amount of $433,448.73 on March 30, 2023. (Mar. 22, 2023 Request for court Judgment; Mar. 30, 2...
2023.12.01 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 266
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.01
Excerpt: ...whether the proposed settlement satisfies CCP 5877.6. See Tech-Bilt v. Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal.3d 488 (1985) and Regan Roofing Co. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.4th 1685 (1994). However, the Oppositions contain evidence indicating that the proposed settlement between the Plaintiffs and Sung defendants may qualify as a faith settlement if the record is further developed. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice to re-file in accordan...
2023.12.01 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 630
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.01
Excerpt: ... 20, 2023, is ruled upon as set forth below. Chugh refers in its briefing to the Amended Cross-complaint as the "Second Amended Crosscomplaint, or "SAXC." This Order refers to it as the AXC. The AXC asserts seventeen (17) total causes of action, eight (8) of which are asserted against the Chugh Cross-Defendants. Chugh has demurred to all eight of these claims. The AXC identifies three Cross-complainants: (1) CPQ Solutions, LLC ("CPQ") (2) Christo...
2023.12.01 Demurrer to SAC 762
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Finigan, Jeffrey R
Hearing Date: 2023.12.01
Excerpt: ...ely "Plaintiffs") is ruled on as follows: Procedurally, Defendant has not established compliance with the meet and confer requirement under Code of Civil Procedure secton 430.41 regarding the Second Cause of Action. Defendant only shows that he met and conferred regarding the Third, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Acton. Nevertheless, since the Second and Third Causes of Action are both fraud claims, the Court proceeds to address the merits of the De...

86 Results

Per page

Pages