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

195 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Santa Cruz x
Judge: All Departments x
2020.08.10 Motion to Enforce Settlement 053
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.08.10
Excerpt: ...4.5 ft. gap between the parties' respective properties. Defendants are ordered to remove the new fence and the addition to the wood pile that extends it further into the 40 ft right of way than the “Wood Pile” that existed at the time of the Settlement Agreement; to pay Plaintiffs $2000 in damages for the removal of the three holly trees; and to pay Plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $11,933, pursuant to the attorneys...
2020.08.04 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 251
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.08.04
Excerpt: ...in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350 Motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication: (d) Separate statement in support of motion (1) The Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a motion must separately identify: (A) Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion. Here, Defendant's...
2020.07.30 Petition for Writ of Mandate 673
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.30
Excerpt: ... and fence on their easement; (2) require Petitioners to either remove the gate and fence or apply for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP); and (3) impose civil penalties if Plaintiffs refuse to remove the gate and fence to allow public access to Twin Lakes State Beach. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate directing the County and the Coastal Commission to (1) withdraw demands for the retraction of their LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: July 3...
2020.07.30 Demurrer 208
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.30
Excerpt: ...ur large joint venture projects. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misrepresented that the “reasonably possible additional costs” of these projects were at most $47 million for 2018; and that Defendants made additional misleading statements as to its “economic outlook in general”, its “exceptional management of risks”, and other expressions of corporate optimism. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to disclose that it had...
2020.07.29 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 398
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.29
Excerpt: ...s a result of the pandemic, it would not be appropriate to approve a settlement that includes performance of financial terms that are now impossible to perform as that settlement would not be reasonable. Defendant suggests that the court exercise equitable powers to impose a new financial term. The court declines to do so. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding whether they wish to return to litigation or settlement negotiations. o...
2020.07.22 Demurrer 035
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.22
Excerpt: ...ise to a duty to act. Regents v Univ.of Calif. V Sup. Ct. (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 607, 669. The FAC alleges that Defendant participated in the plan for a Crossover Ceremony, which included rituals involving the provision of drugs and alcohol to Alex, who was under 21 years of age; that Alex was required to attend the ceremony; that Alex, who was already intoxicated and unable to drive was taken by Defendant and others to the location of the Ceremony, w...
2020.07.21 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 380
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.21
Excerpt: ...material fact which Plaintiff relied on to her detriment [UMFs 1‐30, 30‐60] The evidence in support of this material fact is as follows: Decl Leask, Decl Sue Rowley Decl Annamarie Nelson, Decl Craig Nelson Documentary evidence: Exhibit C. Reporter's Transcript of the Plaintiff's Deposition Vol. I, taken on February 3, 2016 Exhibit D. Reporter's Transcript of the Deposition of Plaintiff, Vol. II, taken on February 4, 2016. Exhibit E. Resumes o...
2020.07.17 Motion for Summary Judgment 477
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.17
Excerpt: ...ilure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion. Dubois asserts as UMF no. 20: “On October 05, 2016, DuBois was advised that its proposal was not accepted and Fifty‐Five was working on estimates from other roofing contractors.” (Dubois Separate Statement UMF 20) The reference to the supporting evidence is: Email Correspondence, Exhibit B4; DuBo...
2020.07.16 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 725
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.16
Excerpt: ...requests the court to compel the City to cease charging Plaintiffs the increased rates; cease charging other customers reduced and deflated rates; and refund all increased water charges paid by Plaintiffs since 2016, with prejudgment interest. The City demurs to the FAC on two bases: (1) Propositions 26 and 218 do not apply to Plaintiffs' claims, because Plaintiffs “voluntarily” use and pay for untreated water from the City, and therefore the...
2020.07.14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 362
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.14
Excerpt: ...iled to return the final modification agreement within the required timeframe, therefore their eligibility for a modification expired. Plaintiffs have failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The motion for JOP to the Third Cause of action for Violation of Civil C. section 2923.7 , is denied. Defendant argues that the allegation of a lack of a single point of contact is belied by the fact that Plaintiffs were reviewed for...
2020.07.10 Demurrer, Motion for Reconsideration, to Compel Responses 004
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.07.10
Excerpt: ...he initial cross‐complaint was filed on January 23, 2019. This cause of action is therefore time barred. Interference with contractual relations/prospective economic advantage (2d & 3rd c/as) Breach of fiduciary duty (4th c/a)/Fraudulent transfer (5th c/a) The Family Law court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over these causes of action, which involve businesses which are community asserts. In October 2017 the San Mateo Superior Court grante...
2020.06.05 Demurrer, Petition for Writ of Mandate 696
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.06.05
Excerpt: ...ect provides for the construction of oncampus housing for a number of students that exceeds the CSA's enrollment cap; and (2) that Defendants have breached §5.1 of the CSA by proceeding with the planning process for the 2020 LRDP, including the release of a Draft LRDP and a Final Proposed Land Use Map which locates all new student housing on campus, without first conducting a comprehensive analysis of potentially feasible alternative locations t...
2020.04.07 Motion for Reconsideration, Demurrer 882
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.04.07
Excerpt: ...tances, or law. DEMURRER The unopposed special demurrer for uncertainty and general demurer to the 2d, 3 rd, 4th and 5th causes of action asserted in the Second Amended Complaint is sustained, without leave to amend. On its own motion the court strikes the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th causes of action as constituting improper matter. Discussion The court previously sustained a special demurrer to the First Amended Complaint for uncertainty, and also sus...
2020.04.01 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 267
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.04.01
Excerpt: ...tive damages from the prayer of the SAC is granted. The balance of the motion is moot in light of the sustaining of the demurrer to the Third cause of action ...
2020.04.01 Demurrer 077
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.04.01
Excerpt: ...o defend their insureds does not make the parties." .Southern Cal. Edison Co, v, State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co., (1969) 271 Cal. App. 2d 744 749. Plaintiff's cause of action is therefore not properly brought against Farmers. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend only to the extent that he can assert a negligence claim against Farmers which is not based solely on a contract of insurance with a defendant‐driver. MOTION TO STRIKE The motion to strik...
2020.03.30 Demurrer 692
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.30
Excerpt: ...Section 809 (enforcement of an easement) and Pen. Code Section 420.1 (penalties for obstructing an easement), only the allegations in the body of the complaint constitute the cause of action. Falahatir v Kondo (2005) 527 Cal. App. 4th 823,829. A demurrer therefore will not lie to the prayer. Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Regents of U.C. (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 338, 368. Defendants' Requests for Judicial Notice The court denies Defendant's RFJN...
2020.03.25 Motion for Summary Judgment 488
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.25
Excerpt: ...irmation of Verbal Agreement for Emergency Force Account Agreement dated January 25, 2017. ▪ Disputed issues of fact exist as to whether CALTRANS Project Engineers asserted control over debris hauling and dumping practices used by Graniterock. LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MARCH 25, 2020 TIME: 8:30 A.M. 2 Supporting evidence UMF No. 6, 10, 17—Plaintiffs' Exhibit. K [Lauderdale depo] , at 39:6‐15, 129:15‐130:9; Exhibit B [Wright d...
2020.03.23 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 274
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.23
Excerpt: ...ctively concedes the materiality of whatever facts are included. Thus, if a triable issue is raised as to any of the facts in the separate statement, the motion should be denied. Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 252 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2009. The court finds that triable issues of material fact are raised as to each of the issues submitted by Defendants for summary adjudication. Based on the declaration of Plaintiff's expert...
2020.03.20 Motion for Preference in Trial Setting 368
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.20
Excerpt: ...cident. Counsel are ordered to appear at the hearing by Court Call to set a trial date (possibly 5/26/20) within 120 days of the hearing (i.e. on or before 7/20/20). ...
2020.03.20 Motion for Preference in Trial Setting 368
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.20
Excerpt: ...cident. Counsel are ordered to appear at the hearing by Court Call to set a trial date (possibly 5/26/20) within 120 days of the hearing (i.e. on or before 7/20/20). ...
2020.03.12 Demurrer 315
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.12
Excerpt: ...22.20.) As a general rule in testing a pleading against a demurrer the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) Therefore the demurrer to the first cause of action for quiet title is overruled. As to the Second Cause of Action for violations of CEQA, the County's claimed public nuisance exemption from CEQA assumes that the C...
2020.03.10 Motion for Sanctions 380
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.10
Excerpt: ...5 allows the trial court to impose sanctions for frivolous actions or tactics made in bad faith. Plaintiff has not followed the safe harbor provision in this section; the trial court cannot award appellate sanctions; and while this court's orders were affirmed on appeal the appellate court decision does not indicate that the appeal was necessarily frivolous or in bad faith; • CCP §2025.430 provides for discovery sanctions for failure to attend...
2020.03.04 Motion for Protective Order 004
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.04
Excerpt: ...hood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” CCP §2017.020 (a). The court finds that justice requires the issuance of the requested protective order to protect Plaintiff from unwanted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense; and that the intrusiveness of this disc...
2020.03.03 Demurrer 043
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.03
Excerpt: ... has run will not be permitted when the result is the addition of a party who, up to the time of the proposed amendment, was neither a named nor a fictitiously designated party to the proceeding. (Ingram v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 483, 492) Defendant Kurrus was neither a named nor a fictitiously designated party to the proceeding when the original complaint was filed. Moreover, while the Supreme Court has a liberal attitude toward all...
2020.03.02 Motion to Continue Trial Date and Extend Discovery Cut-Off Dates 090
Location: Santa Cruz
Judge: All Departments
Hearing Date: 2020.03.02
Excerpt: ...parate trials of issues or causes of action will further convenience or “be conducive to expedition and economy”. The purpose of bifurcation is to promote judicial economy. Horton v Jones (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d 952, 954. The preferred procedure is to try equitable actions first, where to do so will result in factual and legal findings that effectively dispose of the legal claims, and promote judicial economy. Weil and Brown, California Proced...

195 Results

Per page

Pages