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

2574 Results

Location: San Mateo x
2021.03.09 Motion to Approve PAGA Settlement 070
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2021.03.09
Excerpt: ...ies the tentative issued on February 18 as follows: The motion is GRANTED and the notice is approved. The remainder of the tentative is adopted. The Court declines Plaintiff's counsel's request for attorneys' fees of 38% In exercising its discretion after reviewing the record and weighing the factors, the Court continues to believe that one‐third is an appropriate per centage. TENTATIVE OF FEBRUARY 18, 2021 Plaintiffs' motion for approval of a ...
2021.03.09 Demurrer 660
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2021.03.09
Excerpt: ...on with Defendant Waterville, Inc. (“Waterville”). The parties dispute whether Defendant had authority to administer the arbitration. As a threshold matter, the Court has authority to determine issues of arbitrability. Courts defer “questions of arbitrability” to the arbitrator only where the parties have “clearly and unmistakably” agreed that the arbitrator decide those issues. Rent‐A‐Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 US 6...
2021.03.09 Demurrer 394
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2021.03.09
Excerpt: ...t, the parties are to contest the tentative and appear at the hearing to explain. Defendants' demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. In this case, six plaintiffs sue Defendant for violation of Business & Professions Code § 17529.5(a)(1),(2). None of the emails are attached to the SAC. The Court further notes that while the SAC identifies the number of emails each Plaintiff received, there is no further information about the specific emails t...
2021.03.08 Motion to Bifurcate Trial 444
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.03.08
Excerpt: ...g to Defendants, “when dealing with injuries of the magnitude at issue in this case, the effect of sympathy and passion in the jury's deliberations on the subject of liability may well result in a miscarriage of justice.” MPA, p.8. Defendants assert that “Should the facts and evidence support a conclusion that Defendants are not liable for decedent's and Plaintiffs' injuries, presentation of evidence and argument regarding the tragic result...
2021.03.08 Demurrer 723
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.03.08
Excerpt: ...h Plaintiff, the existence of which is established by the Complaint and judicially noticeable facts. Contrary to Defendant's contention, the contract does not need to be in writing since it falls under the exception set forth in Commercial Code section 2201(3)(a). Paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Complaint establishes the remaining elements of this claim. See CACI No. 2201. Defendant also contends this cause of action is barred by res judicata based o...
2021.03.08 Demurrer 456
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.03.08
Excerpt: ...for Wrongful Foreclosure and Fifth Cause of Action for Violations of RESPA pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e). The Demurrer is OVERRULED with respect to Plaintiff's remaining causes of action. Any amended pleading is to be filed within 20 days of this order. First COA for Wrongful Foreclosure: The elements of a wrongful foreclosure cause of action are: “ ‘(1) [T]he trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully...
2021.03.04 Motion to Strike 118
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Chou, Danny
Hearing Date: 2021.03.04
Excerpt: ...ervention (FAC) is DENIED. Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor.1 (See Real v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (C.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2016) 2016 WL 3220811, *2). Use of a motion to strike should be “cautious and sparing” to avoid a “procedural ‘line item veto.' ” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.) A motion to strike may seek to strike any “irrelevant, false or imprope...
2021.03.04 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 022
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Chou, Danny
Hearing Date: 2021.03.04
Excerpt: ...t Equinox Equinox's motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff Robert Pierre Alexander's first through fourth causes of action is DENIED. Equinox's motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is GRANTED. 1. Plaintiff's first cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code sections 1102.5, 6310, and 6311 Equinox contends that summary adjudication of Plaintiff's first cause of action for retaliation in vio...
2021.03.03 Motion to Reopen Discovery 830
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Weiner, Marie S
Hearing Date: 2021.03.03
Excerpt: ...ssity and the reasons for the discovery; (2) the diligence 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 r...
2021.03.02 Motion for Sanctions 345
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2021.03.02
Excerpt: ...aintiffs J.B.B. et. al. (see 2‐10‐21 Opposition brief) pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 128.5(g) is also DENIED. This Court, after reviewing the record and weighing the factors, exercises its discretion and denies both requests for sanctions. J.B.B. et. al. argues Defendants Fair et. al. should be sanctioned for Mr. Fair making false statements in his 12‐3‐20 declaration. J.B.B.'s request for sanctions is based on two sentences in Paragr...
2021.03.01 Demurrer 232
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.03.01
Excerpt: ...vely “Cross‐Defendants”) to the First Amended Cross‐Complaint (“FACC”) of Cross‐Complainants Tarun Gaur (“Gaur”), Tringapps, Inc., Jinigram, LLC, Dial2Buy.com, LLC, and Ravi Kumar (collectively “CrossComplainants”), is ruled on as follows: (1) Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief based on failure to state facts sufficient to support this claim, is OVERRULED. Cross‐Defendants fail to show that all o...
2021.03.01 Demurrer 269
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.03.01
Excerpt: ...itz LLC. The pleading alleges that Plaintiffs are members of Fox Investments, LLC. It does not allege, however, whether any Plaintiff is one of the “certain partners” of Fox Investments (Complaint para. 8) who purchased DeRitz LLC. The Complaint does not identify any member of DeRitz LLC. Further, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action for an accounting. “An action for an accounting may be brought to compel the defendant to account ...
2021.03.01 Demurrer 388
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.03.01
Excerpt: ...ed by a means guaranteeing no later than next‐day delivery. See Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1005(c). The Complaint properly states a cause of action for unlawful detainer (UD). Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(e). The Complaint alleges that after the initial lease term expired and a month‐to‐month tenancy was created, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a 60‐day Notice of Termination of Tenancy (Complaint, Ex. B), which stated that Plaintiffs intende...
2021.03.01 Motion to Strike FAC 232
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.03.01
Excerpt: ...s”) to Strike Portions of the First Amended Cross‐ Complaint (“FACC”) of CrossComplainants Tarun Gaur, Tringapps, Inc., Jinigram, LLC, Dial2Buy.com, LLC, and Ravi Kumar (“Cross‐ Complainants”), is ruled on as follows: (1) The Motion to Strike the portions of Paragraphs 1 and 2 in the Prayer for Relief on page 36, lines 21 and 24 that read “and that Gaur be restored all consideration” is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. CrossCompl...
2021.02.25 Special Motion to Strike 531
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Chou, Danny
Hearing Date: 2021.02.25
Excerpt: ...SAN MATEO INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Applicant, v. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 19‐CIV‐06531 Assigned For All Purposes to Hon. Danny Y. Chou ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S SPECIAL ANTI‐SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE On November 4, 2019, this Court appointed Applicant the Insurance Commissioner of California (Commissioner) the Conservator of Respondent C...
2021.02.25 Motion to Strike Answer 386
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Chou, Danny
Hearing Date: 2021.02.25
Excerpt: ...in November 2020, the LLC's counsel substituted out of the case, leaving the LLC without counsel. Plaintiffs then filed this motion, seeking to strike the LLC's previously filed answer, on the groundsthat an LLC, like a corporation, cannot represent itself in litigation. (See, generally, Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 724, 727.) Although Plaintiffs are correct that the LLC cannot represent itself in this action...
2021.02.25 Motion for Order Re Non-Disclosure of Identity 607
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Chou, Danny
Hearing Date: 2021.02.25
Excerpt: ...ances,” however, a plaintiff may sue under fictitious names, such as “Jane Doe.” (See Doe v. Lincoln Unified Sch. Dist. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758, 766‐67.) The Court finds that the circumstances of this action are sufficiently exceptional to justify allowing Petitioner to proceed under a fictitious name. In this action Petitioner seeks a ruling that the evidence did not support a finding that Petitioner engaged in child abuse. Although P...
2021.02.24 Motion to Compel IME 710
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Weiner, Marie S
Hearing Date: 2021.02.24
Excerpt: ...st instruments”. It is Defendant's contention that the oral examination can be conducted remotely, but that some of the psychological tests cannot be conducted remotely. The Amended Notice lists a multitude of potential tests, and that the doctor “will use her judgment to administer any, all or none of the following test”. No specific evidence has been presented as to which specific tests the doctor has a good faith belief will actually nee...
2021.02.23 Motion for Good Faith Settlement 355
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2021.02.23
Excerpt: ...d failed to serve this motion on RJ Leonard Painting, a pro per defendant who failed to serve any party with its answer. Per the Court's order, on February 17, 2021, A&B notified all parties of the continuance and served the motion on RJ Leonard Painting. “[O]nly when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech‐ Bilt factors … when no one objects, the barebones motion...
2021.02.23 Demurrer 840
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Fineman, Nancy L
Hearing Date: 2021.02.23
Excerpt: ...ple v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 51. Judge Fineman also represented the County of San Mateo in In re Natural Gas Antitrust Cases (Price Indexing), San Diego County, Nos. JCCP4221, JCCP4224, JCCP4226, and JCCP4228. See Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 672. Judge Fineman represented the County of San Mateo in other cases; she does not have the full names or case numbers for those ...
2021.02.22 Motion to Strike 849
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.02.22
Excerpt: ...nor any facts suggesting Defendant engaged in “despicable conduct,” as is required by Section 3294. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he dined at Defendant's restaurant, informed Defendant he had a peanut allergy, inquired whether the food he had ordered contained peanuts, and was told it did not. (Complaint, p. 5). Plaintiff alleges he became ill after consuming the food, which it turns out contained peanut ingredients. Id. For the reasons sta...
2021.02.22 Motion for Summary Judgment 367
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Swope, Raymond
Hearing Date: 2021.02.22
Excerpt: ...or Summary Judgment or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is ruled on as follows: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED since they have failed to establish that there are no triable issues of material fact as to an essential element for each cause of action. Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action and GRANTED as to the Third and Fifth Causes of Action for the reasons se...
2021.02.19 Motion to Quash Service of Summons 267
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Foiles, Robert D
Hearing Date: 2021.02.19
Excerpt: ... confusion, the Court will refer to Equinix Services, Inc. as “PHI,” even though PHI is the company's prior name. The legal basis for the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a Defendant is set forth in detail in the parties' moving and opposing papers, and will not be repeated at length here. Procedurally, when a non‐resident Defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to first demonstrate, by a pre...
2021.02.19 Motion to Enforce Settlement 189
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Foiles, Robert D
Hearing Date: 2021.02.19
Excerpt: ...led to comply with the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement by failing to make payments due thereunder. The Agreement provided that Defendant was to make payments to Plaintiff's counsel's law firm. Mahfouz Decl., Ex. A. ¶ 6. Plaintiff's counsel's declaration states that no payments have been made. Mahfouz Decl., ¶ 9. As a result, Plaintiff has established Defendant is in default under the parties' Agreement. The terms of the Settlement Ag...
2021.02.19 Demurrer 001
Location: San Mateo
Judge: Foiles, Robert D
Hearing Date: 2021.02.19
Excerpt: ...f Act precludes a court from finding a tenant guilty of unlawful detainer before July 1, 2021, absent certain exceptions. (See C.C.P. § 1179.03.5.) The Complaint does not allege that any of the exceptions under C.C.P. § 1179.03.5 apply to this unlawful detainer action. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Leave to amend is not granted. Although leave to amend is routine...

2574 Results

Per page

Pages