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

591 Results

Location: Sonoma x
2020.07.01 Motions for Protective Orders, to Compel Depositions 926
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.07.01
Excerpt: ...s “court records” pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) is denied. Defendants fail to provide a basis for finding that the transcripts fall under the category of court records. And, even if the Court were to take judicial notice of reporter's transcripts, it would not be of the truth of “facts” therein so the relevance of the transcripts is then questionable. (See e.g., Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736...
2020.07.01 Motion to Enforce Stipulation 746
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.07.01
Excerpt: ...nto a binding arbitration provision covering this dispute and Plaintiff's claims. The Court granted the motion after the May 29, 2019 hearing. Plaintiff contends that after the order for arbitration, the parties stipulated to the selection of retired Judge Scott Snowden (“Snowden”) with JAMS as arbitrator but that Defendants have now withdrawn that consent unilaterally and wish to obtain a different arbitrator. Facts and History of the Arbitr...
2020.07.01 Motion to Bifurcate 540
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.07.01
Excerpt: ...m bifurcated and tried first before the Court pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”) §§ 598 and 1048. Plaintiffs' brief contains a lengthy discussion of the merits of their claim, which is outside the scope of the Court's inquiry on this Motion. However, Plaintiffs also oppose the Motion on the basis that the Motion is untimely because it was set for hearing fewer than 30 days before the then-scheduled trial date, as well as on the basis ...
2020.07.01 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 120
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.07.01
Excerpt: ...ppearing on the face of the complaint, exhibits thereto, and judicially noticeable matters. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318. The grounds for a demurrer are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. One of the grounds, in subdivision (e), is the general demurrer that the pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurrer for failure to state facts sufficie...
2020.07.01 Motion to Quash Service of Summons 326
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.07.01
Excerpt: ...damages. The Court grants this request. Defendant moves the Court to quash services of the summons and complaint or, alternatively, to set aside the default and judgment. Relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d), it argues that service is void because service failed to comply with the requirements. It also argues that the Court should set aside the default and judgment based on Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) since it allowed the ...
2020.06.24 Motion to Quash Service of Summons, to Dismiss 831
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.06.24
Excerpt: ...ays due to discovery disputes, they were set for May 20, 2020. However, due to a scheduling conflict with Petitioner's attorney, the parties in march 2020 stipulated to a continuance to June 24, 2020. As a result of the stipulation, however, the court order setting the new hearing date required the reply papers to be filed by May 8, 2020. The reply papers on these matters were filed on June 17, 2020. The moving parties claim that this lateness wa...
2020.06.24 Motion to Compel Arbitration 319
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Boyd, Robert S
Hearing Date: 2020.06.24
Excerpt: ...at the time she was evacuated. [Decedent] was taken by City bus to Finley Center in Santa Rosa and, from there, she was at some point moved by Defendants to another facility in Alameda County, with which she was not familiar. Due to the anxiety and stress of Defendants' acts and omissions alleged herein, and the failure of Defendants to provide [Decedent] with the care for which she contracted with Defendants following the fire, [Decedent] passed...
2020.06.24 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 680
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.06.24
Excerpt: ...g prior to April 15, 2020, until April 15, 2020. Plaintiffs accordingly were allowed up to April 15, 2020 to file their opposition. They filed the opposition on that date, making it timely. Defendant Ridgely Oliver Muller, M.D. (“Muller”) moves for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication against Plaintiffs' complaint. Preliminarily, he calls this a motion for summary judgment or adjudication but it is in effect simply a motio...
2020.06.24 Motion for Summary Adjudication 794
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Boyd, Robert S
Hearing Date: 2020.06.24
Excerpt: ...h Defendants, Safeco approved an initial $1.7 million policy payout to Plaintiffs. The approval was sent via email on November 29, 2017 and the next day, November 30, 2017, Safeco issued and sent the check directly to Plaintiffs. However, also on November 30, 2017, Jim Aljian signed a Public Insurance Adjuster Contract with Defendants. In relevant part, the contract states that Plaintiffs retain Defendants “to advise and assist in the measureme...
2020.06.24 Motion for Costs of Proof Award 504
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.06.24
Excerpt: ...ed a verdict in favor of Badger finding that his sister, defendant Jean Terribilini, had committed a nuisance. Plaintiff moves for reimbursement of attorney fees and costs he incurred in proving that he has an implied easement and an irrevocable license to continue drawing water from a source on his sister's parcel to supply his own, adjoining property. Specifically, he argues that Terribilini should have admitted Requests for Admissions (“RFAs...
2020.06.17 Motion for Summary Judgment 866
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: .... In addition, the Cardmember Agreement provides that use of the card constitutes acceptance of the agreement. (Id. at Nos. 2, 11.) Thus, by use of the card, Defendant, agreed to pay Plaintiff for all charges made on this account. (Ibid.) Plaintiff complied with its obligations under the Agreement by paying vendors for all charges that were made on Defendant's account. (Id. at Nos. 3, 12). Defendant received billing statements but failed to dispu...
2020.06.17 Demurrer 599
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: ...certain, as set forth below. The Arguments Defendants demur to the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. They contend that the default under the terms of the Note occurs if they fail to make required payments and that no allegation shows that any payment occurred after February 2, 2012. This, they claim, indicates that the four-year statute of limitations under Code of C...
2020.06.17 Motion for Summary Adjudication 247
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: ...icy. (Id. at ¶¶3, 15.) Following the fire, Plaintiffs brought suit against State Farm for breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligence; concealment; negligent misrepresentation; estoppel; reformation; and breach of a reformed contract; and against Pollard for breach of contract and negligence. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm breached the agreement “by failing to pay all amounts due for the lo...
2020.06.17 Motion to Remand Case Back to Trial Court 881
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: ...resided over the small claims trial/proceeding. Both parties represented themselves at the small claims trial. Defendant thereafter filed an appeal from the small claims court decision, pursuant to CCP Sec.116.710 and CCP Sec.116.750. Defendant was represented by O'Brien, Watters, and Davis, LLP in the appeal (which, by statute, consists of a de novo hearing before a different judicial officer). Plaintiff had retained counsel to represent her in ...
2020.06.17 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 845
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: ...djudication of one or more causes of action, affirmative defenses, claims for damages, or issues of duty if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no defense to the cause of action, or that an affirmative defense has no merit, or that there is no merit to a claim for damages “as specified in” Civil Code section 3294, or that a party did or did not owe a duty. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f)(1). As th...
2020.06.17 Motion to Compel Further Responses 518
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: ...ion to compel further responses has been made, the responding party has the burden to justify objections or incomplete answers. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220- 221. A party moving to compel further responses to a production request, however, must demonstrate “good cause" for seeking the items. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(b)(1). This requires a showing that the items are relevant to the subject matter of the litigat...
2020.06.17 Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default Judgment 971
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: ...e of Civil Procedure section 473(d) and on the grounds that the default judgment is “void” because the summons and complaint were never properly served. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment is GRANTED. Defendant has thirty (30) days from service of the Court's final ruling to file and serve her motion to quash. The Code states in part that “[t]he court may…on motion of either party aft...
2020.06.17 Motion to Strike 926
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.06.17
Excerpt: ... defendant file an ex parte application to exceed the page limit. This application was opposed. The Court, Judge Wick, denied defendant's application. Rather than file a corrected points and authorities, defendant filed another ex parte application to exceed the page limit on April 15, 2020, which was processed and entered into the court's system on April 30, 2020. The application was again opposed. In light of the pandemic related court closure,...
2020.06.10 Motion to Require Undertaking to Stay Enforcement 047
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.06.10
Excerpt: ...r costs and attorney fees in favor of defendant after her demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. The total amount of the judgment is $33,012. Plaintiff has filed an appeal and defendant now urges the court to exercise its discretion under CCP §917.9(a)(3) and order plaintiff to post an undertaking to stay enforcement of the judgment. After this action was filed, Power discovered that in 2011, the California State Bar had issued a Notice ...
2020.06.10 Motion to Require Payment of Expenses 597
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.06.10
Excerpt: ... to return to public safety officer duties and had limited him to office work. This was significant to plaintiff's ability to prove many of his claims since it meant he was unable to do any field work (an essential function of his police sergeant position), even with reasonable accommodation. In 2019, plaintiff denied the following requests for admission: No. 1: “Your medical restrictions precluded you from performing the essential functions of...
2020.06.10 Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena 191
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.06.10
Excerpt: ... using the information outside this litigation. The motion is DENIED in all other respects, including the request to quash the subpoena or issue a protective order limiting the information and records to be produced. Plaintiff served Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells”) with a deposition subpoena for production of business records on January 22, 2020 seeking production of the statements, cashiers' checks, deposits and credits, checks, withdrawals,...
2020.06.10 Motion to Compel Further Responses 924
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.06.10
Excerpt: ...is is not clear. Except for any part of the motion which the Court finds to be moot, or for which the parties demonstrate otherwise, Motion to Compel Post Construction Services, L.P. to Further Respond to Defendant's Requests for Production of Documents and to Produce Additional Documents GRANTED. Reasonable sanctions of $7,276.75, based on 18 hours of work, awarded to the moving party. Denmark moves the Court to compel further responses and prod...
2020.06.10 Motion to Compel Arbitration 805
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.06.10
Excerpt: ... former employees of Black Bear Diner in Rohnert Park. Plaintiffs Amanda Wolf, Claudia Cairo, Monique Cortes-Arcos, and Lena Sheridan allege claims based on sexual assault, sexual discrimination and pregnancy discrimination. Jose Bustillos' claims are based on his status as a whistleblower who reported to BBDI the alleged abusive treatment of women at the diner as well as alleged health and safety violations. Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections Pl...
2020.06.10 Motion to Amend Complaint 353
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.06.10
Excerpt: ...ica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. As long as the motion is “timely” and will not prejudice a party, it is normally an abuse of discretion to refuse to allow amendment if the denial will deprive a party of a meritorious claim or defense. Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596. Normally delay alone is not a sufficient reason to deny amendment, unless the delay has resulted in prejudice...
2020.06.10 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 805
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Boyd, Robert S
Hearing Date: 2020.06.10
Excerpt: ...ached bolt.” (FAC at ¶7.) Plaintiff contends that “[t]he unpadded metal fence post and bolt was a ‘dangerous condition' when athletic activities such as football practice were being conducted contiguous and toward the unpadded fence post and the injury sustained by [P]laintiff was ‘reasonably foreseeable and created a ‘substantial risk' of the type of injury alleged...” (Id. at ¶9.) Plaintiff also contends that “[d]efendants had ...

591 Results

Per page

Pages