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

682 Results

Location: Santa Cruz x
2022.08.02 Motion for Reconsideration, for New Trial, for Attorney Fees 856
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.08.02
Excerpt: ...t that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (e) This section specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewal...
2022.08.02 Demurrer 610
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.08.02
Excerpt: ...iles containing medical information, and security systems restricting access to files containing medical information. (b) No employee shall be discriminated against in terms or conditions of employment due to that employee's refusal to sign an authorization under this part. However, nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from taking such action as is necessary in the absence of medical information due to an employee's refusal to sign ...
2022.07.29 Petition for Writ of Mandate 209
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.29
Excerpt: ...plainant”), despite undisputed facts that during the same encounter they engaged in other consensual sex acts with each other. The parties met at Doe's house on June 16, 2020, where he cooked her dinner, they drank wine, and had at least two separate sexual encounters. (AR 18‐20, 51, 1138) It is undisputed that complainant communicated and Doe understood she did not want to have sexual intercourse with him. (AR 1073, 1160) During one of their...
2022.07.28 Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment 339
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.28
Excerpt: ...0 ft right of way that crosses Parcel C and Defendants' Parcel A, and terminates at the property line of Plaintiffs' Parcel B,” but the court did not rule, as stated in Plaintiff's Judgment, that the Plaintiffs possess “a 40 foot right of way for road and utility purposes as shown upon” the 1977 Map attached to the Judgment as Exhibit A”. (MPA pg.4:16‐22) However, the Notice of entry of order filed 2/28/22 states, “Plaintiffs have est...
2022.07.25 Demurrer 747
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.25
Excerpt: ...ed on different legal theories, and have different elements. In the second cause of action Plaintiff is alleging liability based on Plaintiff's specific request to Defendants for “adequate and full coverage,” and Defendants' promise to perform an inspection, presumably to assure that coverage was “adequate and full.” (See Desai v Farmers Insurance Exchange (1996) 47 Cal.App.4 th 1110, 1119‐1120; CACI 2361. In the third cause of action P...
2022.07.22 Motion to Seal Complaint 311
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.22
Excerpt: ...e not sealed. (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. The facts supporting these findings are as follows: Plaintiff, through her declaration, has shown good cause exists to seal the complaint. The nature of the complaint involves personal, private, and painful matters which occurred when she was a minor. Defendant has not responded to the complaint, which is viewab...
2022.07.21 Demurrer to SAC 454
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.21
Excerpt: ...].) A public entity is not liable for an injury arising out of an act or omission of the public entity or its employees except as provided by statute. (Gov. Code, § 815, subd. (a).) (Cerna v. City of Oakland (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1346‐1347 [75 Cal.Rptr.3d 168].) Cal Gov Code § 830 Dangerous condition; Property of a public entity: As used in this chapter: (a) “Dangerous condition” means a condition of property that creates a substan...
2022.07.19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 380
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.19
Excerpt: ...portion of Defendants' property. Plaintiffs seek a further order requiring Defendants to remove a locked bollard and sawhorse they installed at the entrance to the secondary driveway easement. The burden of proof is on the moving party to show the elements necessary to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, §9:632.1. These elements are (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits; a...
2022.07.15 Motion for Settlement Credit 488
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.15
Excerpt: ...t included SCCS's stipulation to certain facts, including that, in the absence of inaccurate and incomplete information from Keenan & Associates (Keenan), SCCS would not have placed Plaintiff on the 39 month rehire list and would instead have immediately reinstated Plaintiff. LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: July 18, 2022 TIME: 8:30 A.M. 2 Plaintiff proceeded to trial against Keenan. The jury found Keenan liable for intentional torts and aw...
2022.07.14 Motion to Amend Answer 844
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.14
Excerpt: ...e stated generally that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of section (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon) of the Code of Civil Procedure; and if such allegation be controverted, the party pleading must establish, on the trial, the facts showing that the cause of action is so barred. The defense of the statute of limitations is not waived, if it was "pleaded or presented to the ...
2022.07.14 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 004
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.14
Excerpt: ...he $82,000 line of credit was secured against his property located at 362 Pike Road Ben Lomond, CA. (Dec.of Noce ¶¶2‐3) Mr. Noce lost the property through foreclosure in May of 2011. (Dec. of Noce ¶4) Pursuant to the terms of the line of credit, Noce was required to make monthly payments on the HELOC. (Dec. of Noce ¶6) Noce stopped making monthly payments on the HELOC. He believed the foreclosure extinguished any outstanding debt. (Dec. of ...
2022.07.11 Motion to Compel Arbitration of Individual Claims, to Dismiss Class Claims 962
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.11
Excerpt: ...ations and other documentary evidence, as well as any oral testimony the court LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: July 11, 2022 TIME: 8:30 A.M. 6 may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination. Ruiz v Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 842. The party seeking arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. If challenged, the petitione...
2022.07.11 Motion to Transfer Venue 184
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.11
Excerpt: ...2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313‐314 [154 Cal.Rptr.3d 907].) Defendants assert that “all of the entity Pro Farms Defendants are unincorporated associations...as they are all LLC's”, (Reply pg. 5:18, Crummer Dec. filed 6/3/22 ¶¶ 2,4, RJN pg. 2:21) and that in a breach of contract action, pursuant to CA CCP §§ 395.2 and 395.5, venue is proper where the contract is made or is to be performed. (MPA pg. 11:4‐13) Cal Code Civ Proc § 395.2 Ve...
2022.07.01 Motion for Reconsideration 362
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.07.01
Excerpt: ...de the order, to reconsider the matter. Here, the Notice of Entry of Judgment filed 5/5/22 was served by mail on Plaintiffs on 5/5/22. Adding 5 days for service by mail (CCP § 1013), the motion for reconsideration was due filed on 5/20/22. Plaintiffs filed a “notice of intent to file a motion for reconsideration” on 5/20/22 but did not file the motion for reconsideration until 6/13/22 and provide no authority to support the position that a n...
2022.06.30 Motion for Summary Judgment 020
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.30
Excerpt: ...th 675, 682‐683, because (a) Plaintiff has no evidence of a special relationship between himself and these Defendants which would give rise to a legal duty to protect against third party conduct: and (b) Defendants did not have any prior knowledge that the dog that bit Plaintiff had any dangerous propensities; and (2) the strict liability cause of action, which is brought under Civ. Code §3342, has no merit, because strict liability under this...
2022.06.29 Demurrer 913
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.29
Excerpt: ...GS DATE: June 29, 2022 TIME: 8:30 A.M. 2 the deed of trust (DOT) name SDC as an additional insured/loss payee. SDC fails to seek judicial notice of the DOT and it is not an exhibit to the 6AC. In its reply, SDC submits Plaintiff's unverified admissions that the insurance required SDC to be named as an additional insured and the policy did not. For purposes of this demurrer, unverified admissions are unpersuasive. Regarding Plaintiff's 7th cause o...
2022.06.27 Petition for Writ of Mandate 448
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.27
Excerpt: ... policy: discrimination; sexual harassment; supervisor responsibilities; ethics; relationships; performance; and conduct. City alleged and was successful in demonstrating to the City Council that Ball violated these city policies when he sexually harassed a subordinate and retaliated against her. Petitioner's writ is denied. As discussed below, the weight of the evidence supports findings that Petitioner engaged in conduct that violated the City'...
2022.06.24 Motion to Set Aside Judgment 197
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.24
Excerpt: ... not apply. In limited civil cases, in addition to extrinsic fraud or mistake, the Court's equitable powers to vacate judgments are extended to include inadvertence or excusable neglect. (CCP § 86(b)(3); Cal Practice Guide, (TRG 2021) Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 5:435‐438.) The evidence before the Court is that Defendant relied upon an unidentified third‐party financial institution to help him, and that he was working with Discover and ...
2022.06.24 Motion for Protective Order 562
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.24
Excerpt: ...'s and high level executives established that they had essentially zero involvement or knowledge in particular cases (except in some instances to be cc'd on letters or authoring memos related to systems or prototypes). Liberty, 10 Cal.App.4th at 1288‐1289. This case is different. Here, VPX's CEO signed the exclusive distribution agreement with Plaintiff's competitor and was identified by the PMK as the final decision maker with legal as to buy ...
2022.06.22 Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena and for Protective Order 025
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.22
Excerpt: ...damental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 472, 398 P.3d 69].) Thinh's objections are based upon his right to privacy in these financial records. CCP § 1985.3. Thinh claims that if the records are produced, Tran will know the financial institution that originated the wire transfers and further fabricate and fact‐fit his case against Thinh. (P&...
2022.06.22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 041
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.22
Excerpt: ...iff‐borrower's negligence claim against a junior lender for allegedly failing to timely respond to the borrower's application to modify a second position deed of trust, resulting in the sale of the loan and foreclosure while the application was still pending. The court affirmed the general rule, stated in Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089 (Nymark), that financial institutions owe no duty of care to a borrower ...
2022.06.17 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 909
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.17
Excerpt: ...violently and unexpectedly nosedive and slam into the pavement. Plaintiffs assert nine causes of action against FM, and a tenth claim/prayer for punitive damages. The first five causes of action are predicated on Plaintiffs' defective product claim [negligence, negligence per se; strict liability; failure to warn; and negligent design], and are referred to herein as the “negligence/product liability” causes of action. The 7th through 9th caus...
2022.06.15 Demurrer 269
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.15
Excerpt: ...until June 1, 2020 to perform. Plaintiffs allege that the reasons given for the cancellation were a pretext; and that on that same date (May 31, 2020) Defendants entered into a contract to sell the property to the Rodriguez Defendants for a higher price. Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that have Plaintiffs timely performed all of their obligations under the PSA; and alternatively, that to the extent there was a failure to timely prov...
2022.06.14 Motion to Compel Discovery and Monetary Sanctions 353
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.14
Excerpt: ...REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (“RFP”): RFP 2: This request seeks all documents related to or evidencing the account on which Plaintiff's claim is based. Plaintiff's amended response identifies bates nos. 1‐69 and then states “Velocity is producing all documents in its possession, custody and control that are responsive to this request.” While this response is not verbatim from the code, it does appear to identify that documents 1...
2022.06.13 Special Motion to Strike SAC 165
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2022.06.13
Excerpt: ...he act underlying the plaintiff's cause fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e)" If the court finds that such a showing has been made, it must then determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88) The inquiry under the catchall provision calling for a two‐part analysis is rooted in the statute's purpose and internal logic....

682 Results

Per page

Pages