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

678 Results

Location: Sonoma x
2020.09.16 Motion to Vacate Dismissal 328
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ... payments Plaintiff made on behalf of its insured. Defendant Faletto filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Hernan. At the August 8, 2019 Case Management Conference, at which the parties were required to appear, the court addressed Plaintiff's failure to file a CMC Statement and sanctions were ordered against Plaintiff's counsel, Lee Mendelson, in the amount of $250.00, payable within 10 days. The minutes reflect that the matter was continued ...
2020.09.16 Motion to Dismiss Stakeholder from Interpleader Action, for Entry of Interlocutory Decree745
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ... that Defendant Virginia Pasini (“Pasini”) owns the Property, Pasini entered into a master lease with Defendant Ridgeway Distribution (“Ridgeway”) for the Property, Ridgeway subleased the Property to Piner on November 1, 2017 (“Master Sublease”). The disputes and uncertainty have led to problems, including Ridgeway serving a notice of termination on Piner and Plaintiffs for defaults, leading Plaintiffs instead to pay rent directly to ...
2020.09.16 Motion to Dismiss Complaint 069
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ...g pursuant to CCP § 1030 on the grounds that Plaintiff resides outside of the State of California and Defendant has a reasonable probability of prevailing in the case (the “Undertaking Motion”). The Anti-SLAPP Motion, the Demurrer, and the Undertaking Motion were all heard on May 20, 2020 and on May 27, 2020 the Court issued an order: 1) granting the Anti-SLAPP Motion and dismissing the Complaint; 2) dropping the Demurrer on the basis that i...
2020.09.16 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, for Attorneys' Fees 498
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ... by the settlement administrator after the moving papers were filed, andcontingent uponPlaintiff filing a corrected Cohen Declaration attaching the referenced Exhibit 4, the Motions would be granted but that the requested service award to Plaintiff would be reduced to $6,000 and Plaintiff's attorneys' fee award would be reduced to $62,500, with a corresponding increase of $ 22,333.33 to the Net Settlement Fund available to the participating membe...
2020.09.16 Motion for Default 695
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ...ted Parties by registered mail. Plaintiff filed proof of service on August 21, 2014 for the petition, notice, and claim form showing service that day on one named Interested Party, Hongxia Li (“Li”) by mail. Plaintiff filed a new proof of service on April 14, 2015, showing service on both named Interested Parties, that day, by mail. The same day, Plaintiff filed a declaration explaining that the Property had been seized from the Interested Pa...
2020.09.16 Motion for Clarification of Ruling, for Entry of Judgment 943
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ...rt, which was not the trial court, has the ability to hear and determine the motion.” (See, Court's July 15, 2020 Minute Order.) The Court stated that it's “[v]iew is that the parties have the right under CCP section 635 to request the Presiding Judge, or his designee, enter judgment in conformity with the trial judge's Statement of Decision, and nothing more. However, as this issue was not addressed by the parties, the matter is continued to...
2020.09.16 Motion for Attorney Fees, to Confirm Arbitrator's Award 390
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ...f authority to grant fees related to the ex parte application that was filed in this court. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. This case concerned the failure of the owner and general contractor to pay retention monies owed to subcontractor MBO for work that was performed for a residential construction project, including infrastructure, located in Healdsburg, California (the "Project"). The Project is owned by defendants Jeffrey Aresty and Patricia...
2020.09.16 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 236
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ...ludes causes of action for: 1) breach of contract (against Nationwide, Amco, and Vega); 2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against Nationwide, Amco, and Vega); 3) financial elder abuse (against Nationwide, Amco, and Vega); 4) breach of contract (against Empire); 5) financial elder abuse (against Empire); and 6) conspiracy (against Nationwide, Amco, Vega, and Empire). This matter is on calendar for the demurrer by Na...
2020.09.16 Demurrer 869
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ... final ruling. 1. Abbott Fails to Allege Sufficient Facts to State her Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation. The elements of a cause of action for fraud are (1) a misrepresentation, meaning false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4t...
2020.09.16 Application for Right to Attach Order, Writ of Attachment 734
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ...Application” for an “RTO”) pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) § 483.010 et seq., which was filed on January 17, 2020. This matter has been continued multiple times due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the statutes. However, the Court finds that the moving papers have now been properly served and the Application is GRANTED. I. Procedural Issues The Application has been plagued by various proced...
2020.09.11 Demurrers 373
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.09.11
Excerpt: ...n behalf of Defendants Ryan Agrella and Chris Agrella (collectively, “the Sons”), are OVERRULED. To the extent that the Court has sustained the demurrer, Plaintiff has leave to amend within 20 days of the service of the notice of entry of this order. Defendants are to serve the notice of entry of this order within 5 days of entry of this order. Defendants Ryan Agrella and Chris Agrella are required to answer within 10 days of service of the n...
2020.09.11 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 031
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2020.09.11
Excerpt: ...attas Tona fell while lawfully upon Defendant's premises. It alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to maintain their premises up to code and free of hazardous conditions. The complaint specifically mentions Defendant's failure to have “adequate lighting and failing to comply with state codes, ordinances and laws regarding their premises including but not limited to proper illumination in the area and on the landings, steps/stair...
2020.09.11 Motion to Compel Compliance with Prior Court Order Compelling Responses 621
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.11
Excerpt: ...'s responses to Moving Defendants' first set of form interrogatories and special interrogatories, for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,064, and for evidentiary and issue sanctions. The request to compel responses is DENIED as MOOT; the request for issue and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED; and the request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and/or her counsel shall pay Moving Defendants $620 within ten (10) days of notice of entry ...
2020.09.11 Motion to Dissolve Permanent Injunction 339
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.09.11
Excerpt: ...Although the complaint refers only to one station and underground storage tank at 525 East Washington Street, Petaluma, the stipulated judgment covers all stations which Defendants own and operate (“the Stations”), which apparently included, as set forth in Plaintiff's motions to enforce judgment, 101 North McDowell Boulevard, Petaluma; 483 East Washington Street, Petaluma; and 532 East Washington Street, Petaluma (“the Petaluma Stations”...
2020.09.11 Motion to Set Aside Default, Judgment 365
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.09.11
Excerpt: ... are named as officers, directors or shareholders and agents of the business entity Defendant. Procedural History Plaintiff filed separate proofs of service for the summons and complaint for each Defendant. Plaintiff filed one such proof of service showing personal service on Defendant Park at 105 Toyon Lane, Union City, California, on September 13, 2014, and stating that the “Notice to Person Served” identified Park as an individual defendan...
2020.09.10 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 588
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Daum, Elliot L
Hearing Date: 2020.09.10
Excerpt: ...st 2007 until October 2014, when CVHA terminated Defendant's contract. (UMF Nos. 7, 15, 23 and AUMF No. 1.) Plaintiff purchased a residential property that was part of CVHA in December 2015, i.e., approximately 14 months after Defendant was terminated. (UMF Nos. 1-4, 8-10, 16-19.) Subsequent to the purchase, Plaintiff alleges that he discovered “extensive problems with the Property that were known to defendant Seller, but not disclosed to Plain...
2020.09.02 Motion to Compel Further Responses 999
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...age for Plaintiffs' property destroyed in the October 9, 2017 Tubbs Fire, as well as bad faith in connection with the adjustment of Plaintiffs' claim. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that Defendant Rosetti failed to obtain separate dwelling insurance for a separate barn-style dwelling unit (the “Barn Unit”) on the property along with the main residence, resulting in limited and insufficient “other structures” coverage when the B...
2020.09.02 Motion to Bifurcate Trial 621
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ... to bifurcate the trial so Plaintiff must “first establish the subject release was obtained through fraud, in the first phase of trial, with the second phase being liability and damages, if necessary.” Moving Defendants further request an order requiring “two separate juries to hear each phase and an order setting the phases two to three months apart.” Notice of Motion at 1:21-26. Defendants Herc Rentals, Inc. and Herc Holdings, Inc. file...
2020.09.02 Motion to Amend Renewed Judgment 205
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...d renewed judgment accordingly. Such motion shall be filed on or before October 16, 2020. If no such motion is timely filed, the parties are hereby given notice that the Court will, sua sponte, correct the renewed judgment to $2,183.34 to reflect the amount of the Judgment minus the $6,583.02 credit reflected in the Acknowledgment described below. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant Karma N. Matheson (“Defendant”) in the a...
2020.09.02 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 645
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ... limitations under Government Code section 12960, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to show disputed issues of fact with respect to her claim of equitable tolling of all causes of action. Based on this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could find that Plaintiff has met the elements for equitable tolling and thus, her action would be timely. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is denied. “The statute o...
2020.09.02 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 038
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...y via a regular sale. Following demurrer, the FAC contains causes of action for: 1) wrongful foreclosure (monetary damages); and 2) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code (“B&PC”) § 17200 et seq. (the “UCL”). This matter is on calendar for the motion by Defendant for summary judgment or, in the alternative summary adjudication of both remaining causes of action on the grounds that they have no merit. The Motion is DENIED. I. The Complaint A...
2020.09.02 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 743
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...and joined Defendant Golden State Wealth Management, LLC (“GSWM”), founded and run by Defendant Patrick Catone (“Catone”) (collectively, “the GSWM Defendants”) and in so doing misappropriated trade secrets which Defendants now use to compete with Plaintiffs. They contend that Curiel was assigned more than 200 high-net-worth clients when working with Plaintiffs; Curiel developed a personal relationship with Plaintiffs' clients but did ...
2020.09.02 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 221
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...24- 25.) Plaintiffs explain that Defendants recently acquired a permit to convert a residential property to a cannabis cultivation facility and “[a]llowing such use would increase the amount of traffic on the road, change the type of traffic from passenger to commercial vehicles, and expand the hours that the road is in use.” (Id. at 4:9-11.) Plaintiffs spend the majority of their motion arguing the merits of their underlying claims to limit ...
2020.09.02 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 236
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...ction for: 1) breach of contract (against Nationwide, Amco, and Vega); 2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against Nationwide, Amco, and Vega); 3) financial elder abuse (against Nationwide, Amco, and Vega); 4) breach of contract (against Empire); 5) financial elder abuse (against Empire); and 6) conspiracy (against Nationwide, Amco, Vega, and Empire). This matter is on calendar for Empire's Demurrer to the fifth and ...
2020.09.02 Demurrer 109
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...led. Plaintiffs have leave to amend within 10 days of the service of the notice of entry of this order. Defendants are to serve the notice of entry of this order within 5 days of entry of this order. The Complaint Plaintiffs complain that Defendants misrepresented the net result or effect of loans or mortgages (“the Loans”) which Defendants provided to Plaintiffs and which were secured against two parcels of real property (“the Properties...

678 Results

Per page

Pages