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

2570 Results

Location: Sonoma x
2022.05.04 Motion to Compel Responses 775
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...a result of Defendants' negligence and failure to maintain the Premises in a habitable condition in compliance with applicable codes, and that for a period of time the conditions were such that they were barred from entering or using the Premises. Discovery Defendants served Plaintiffs on April 10, 2020 with a supplemental interrogatory and supplemental request for production, each asking Plaintiffs to review their responses to prior discovery an...
2022.05.04 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 937
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ... of the 479 class members have been so far found to be undeliverable, one class member submitted a dispute which was resolved, one has opted out, and no member has objected. Facts and History Plaintiff complains that when Defendant employed him as a “Cellar Associate” from about April 2018 until terminating him on or about November 4, 2019, Defendant violated several provisions of the Labor Code by failing to provide accurate wage statements,...
2022.05.04 Motion to Compel Responses 202
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...has trespassed on Plaintiff's Property by excavating without permission and constructing additional water systems to collect ground water to which Defendant is not allowed. Plaintiff alleges that in 1936, the then-owner of Plaintiff's Property (“Weeks”) granted to the then-owner of Defendant's Property (“Seaman”) “the continuous right to the water flowing, and to flow, from that certain spring situated on the Northwest forty… acres”...
2022.05.04 Application for Writ of Possession 256
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ... the property because Rudra has defaulted on the loan and has failed to cure the default despite two separate notices of default. The application is GRANTED. Defendant's bond is set at $400,000. At the hearing, a writ of possession shall issue if both of the following are found: (1) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the plaintiff's claim to possession of the property; and, (2) the undertaking requirements of Section 515.010 a...
2022.05.04 Demurrer 815
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...mplaint alleges that on March 5, 2020, Plaintiff leased a 2019 Volkswagen Atlas from Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to conform the vehicle to the express written warranties within a reasonable number of repair attempts or within the warranty periods, and by failing to promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for Violati...
2022.05.04 Demurrer 986
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...hout leave to amend on the basis of res judicata, the statute of limitations, and Plaintiff's failure to state a cause of action against Keysight. Defendant HP now demurs to Plaintiff's complaint asserting that her claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the statute of limitations. The Court appointed a Demurrer Facilitator in this matter, who met with the parties and provided a recommendation to the Court. The Demurer Facilitator r...
2022.05.04 Motion for Attorney Fees 218
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...repair, including violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”) at Civil Code (“CC”) section 1790, et seq. On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement of the entire action. Motion Plaintiff now moves the court for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and other litigation expenses. She contends that she is the prevailing party on her claims pursuant to CC section 1794(d) because she obtaine...
2022.05.04 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 812
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...ons or that she has one or more valid defenses to Plaintiff's causes of action, the motion will be granted, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The legal effect of the court's order deeming matters admitted is judicially noticed. A plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the pleadings if “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the a...
2022.05.04 Motion for Leave to File FAC 809
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...ddition, the proposed FAC will remove allegations of wrongdoing that have been corrected. The motion is GRANTED. The additional allegations added to the proposed FAC are that Defendant improperly accepted a $50,000 loan from a board member without disclosing it; the decision to accept the loan was approved by only two out of three board members, including the board member who made the loan. Plaintiff alleges in the proposed FAC that the loan most...
2022.05.04 Motion for Summary Judgment 743
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...es when Defendant applied for, received, and used the credit card account. (UMF, 2.) After receiving the credit card, Defendant made various purchases of goods, services, and/or cash advances on the account. (UMF, 3.) Record of Defendant's charges to the credit card account were kept track of electronically and sent to Defendant in the form of monthly billing statements. (UMF, 4.) There is no record that Defendant asserted a valid objection to an...
2022.05.04 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 236
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...io are referred to herein as “Plaintiff.” On October 5, 2020 Plaintiff filed the presently operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) against defendants Empire Building and Restoration, Inc. (hereinafter “Empire” or “Defendant”), Nationwide Insurance, AMCO Insurance Company, and Francisco Vega arising out of a fire on January 7, 2014 which destroyed the third floor and damaged most of the second floor of Caetano's home (the “Fire...
2022.05.04 Motion to Compel Further Responses 703
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.05.04
Excerpt: ...ed below. Plaintiff served his Request for Production, Set Two, on defendant KFH on December 16, 2021, by email. (Hirsch Decl., ¶4, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Number 32, seeks: The employment applications of each applicant YOU HIRED FOR THE 4 POSITIONS PLAINTIFF APPLIED FOR DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF JANUARY 2019 THROUGH MAY 2019, INCLUDING (1) WORKPLACE SAFETY SPECIALIST (SANTA ROSA HOSPITAL); (2) SUPERVISOR, AD...
2022.04.27 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 302
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...thorization to debit the account and prevented Plaintiff form obtaining the funds due to it, breaching the Agreement. Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for breach of contract as well as common counts. On March 12, 2021, Plaintiff obtained the default of Defendant Matt Morgan Design, Inc. Plaintiff later served Defendants Matthew Morgan (“Matthew”) and Melissa Morgan (“Melissa”) each with a Set One of form interrogatories, special interr...
2022.04.27 Demurrer to FAA 513
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...led their opposition on April 14, 2022; however, their opposing papers were due to be filed seven days prior, on April 7, 2022 (9 courts days before the scheduled hearing date pursuant to CCP § 1005(b).) This week-long delay did not afford Plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to review their opposition and respond to it. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the defendants' late opposition. The Court's decision is also supported by the fact...
2022.04.27 Motion for Attorney Fees 094
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ... for the section 19955 claim. This must exclude any time claimed for appellate work or “meetings” with client and others for this court has now determined that Defendant, as a result of its singular failure to provide any clarification, is unable to demonstrate any such time that was not intertwined with unrecoverable claims. The court therefore denies the motion to recover any fees for appellate work or “meetings” with clients and others...
2022.04.27 Motion for Attorney Fees, to Tax Costs 926
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...aintiff's attorneys (set at premium 2022 local rates); (2) unreasonable billing for multiple attorneys' time; (3) the Court's finding of no basis to award expert witness fees; and (4) the appropriateness of recovery for the reasonable costs of bringing this fees motion. Two other matters that the Court finally determined, but which the parties continue to contest, are: (1) that apportionment between Plaintiff's non-PAGA and PAGA claims is necessa...
2022.04.27 Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction 973
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...he trust which owned the Property Plaintiff obtained a default against Defendants James K. Fife (“James”) and Dennis Fife (“Dennis”) on September 21, 2021 but in November 2021 the parties stipulated to setting aside the default as to James. Plaintiff on October 1, 2021 obtained the default of Defendant Steve Matysik (“Matysik”), as Successor Co-Trustee of the Mary Fife 1992 Trust but Plaintiff then dismissed the claims against Matysik...
2022.04.27 Special Motion to Strike 962
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...�). They contend that after the Loss, pending reconstruction of the Home, at 6461 Foothill Ranch Road, Santa Rosa, they decided to purchase an investment residential property at 1827 Creekside Road, Santa Rosa (“the Creekside Property”) and to live in it until their Home was rebuilt. They claim that they discussed the insurance options with Defendant's agents and determined that they would live in the Creekside Property, instead of renting it...
2022.04.27 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 915
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...result of an electrical shock from dangerous and negligently maintained electrical wiring. He later named PG&E as a Doe Defendant. The complaint and Doe amendment lack specific details regarding the circumstances, Plaintiff's work, or the nature of the wiring. On April 1, 2022, PG&E brought an ex parte application for an order shortening time (“OST”) for a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. This court granted that application, settin...
2022.04.27 Motion to Compel Deposition of PMK, Production of Docs, Further Responses 815
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ... truck (“the Truck”), with warranties from Defendant's authorized dealer, W.C. Sanderson Ford (“Sanderson”), but it suffered from defects of which Defendant was aware at the time and which Defendant concealed, Plaintiff repeatedly took it to Defendant's authorized dealer for repairs but Defendant has not remedied the problem or recalled or replaced the defective parts. Defendant moved the court to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims ...
2022.04.27 Motion to Compel Responses 177
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...s (“FIs”) against Responding Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 2030.300, and for Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents (“RPODs”) from Responding Defendant under CCP § 2031.310. Responding Defendant served supplemented discovery responses on February 14, 2022. When a party serves response after a motion to compel is filed, the court maintains jurisdiction within its discretion to determine whether the a...
2022.04.27 Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted 750
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...he motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is DENIED as Defendants provided responses prior to the hearing on the motion. However, sanctions are mandatory and are imposed in the amount of $2,500 jointly against Defendants and defense counsel. This Court's proposed tentative ruling for April 13, 2022, required Defendants to serve Plaintiff with verified responses, without objection, prior to the hearing on this motion or Plaintiff's Reques...
2022.04.27 Motion to Modify Adjudication Order 483
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...16, 2022, and was continued to allow Petitioner to provide additional information that the North Bay Bohemian has not undergone significant changes since its time as The Sonoma County Independent. The Petition is DENIED. Gov. Code section 6024(1) allows a decision and judgment adjudicating a newspaper as one of general circulation to be vacated, modified or set aside by the court on its own motion, or on the motion of any person, whether a party ...
2022.04.27 Motion to Strike or Tax Costs 295
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ... the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 618, 624.) There is no requirement that copies of bills, invoices, statements, or any other such documents be attached to the memorandum. Supporting documentation must be submitted only if costs have been put in issue by a motion t...
2022.04.27 Demurrer 871
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2022.04.27
Excerpt: ...ocated at 3353 Mountain Home Ranch Rd in Calistoga. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Gold has wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings to make plaintiff wrongfully shoulder the burden of all losses caused by the 2017 Tubbs fire. Plaintiff alleges that it was PG&E's negligent maintenance that caused the Tubbs fire which led to damage and devaluation of Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff alleges such maintenance is so intertwined with the function...

2570 Results

Per page

Pages