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
2019.1.29 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 207
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2019.1.29
Excerpt: ...on will be decided at trial, not on a motion for leave to amend. Moreover, the Defendants have failed to demonstrate any prejudice by the proposed amendments. Plaintiff shall file and serve, either personally or by facsimile, the proposed complaint within three days of this hearing. The currently scheduled trial date is vacated. Appearances are required to address setting of trial. ...
2019.1.25 Motion for Sanctions 562
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...s. It does not show that Plaintiff served responses to the requests for admissions or that these were sufficient, and it offers no explanation of the situation. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the failure to serve the responses in time resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Nothing shows why Plaintiff failed to serve responses or oppose the motion to compel and there is no evidence that she failed to do so because her...
2019.1.25 Petition to Compel Arbitration, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 727
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...81, et seq. and on the grounds that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable “Mutual Binding Arbitration Agreement” which requires the parties to resolve all disputes “that may arise out of the employment context” in arbitration. Defendant contends that this is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement which encompasses all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action. Additionally, Defendant argues that to the extent th...
2019.1.25 Demurrer 381
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...ted. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is barred from <0048004a00480003004600 00480003005a004c0057[h the applicable government claims presentation requirements. Additionally, SMART contends that the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend because Plaintiff's application to file a late government claim was made more than one- year after accrual of his cause of action and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such...
2019.1.25 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 350
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Daum, Elliot L
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...rably” to the recovery by class members who are receiving “as much as $10,000 each.” Plaintiff argues that he worked “extensively” with class counsel over the course of five years, appeared for deposition twice, responded to numerous requests, searched for documents, and worked with class counsel on discovery and reviewing settlement documentation. He is providing a more comprehensive release than the class as a whole, and he put the in...
2019.1.25 Demurrer 260
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...each of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Krusiewicz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 273 is not controlling here because based on promises to a third party, not the insured, and outside the context of the actual insurance policy. The court reaches this same decision regardless of the possible lateness of the opposition and with or without considering the opposition. Defendant Mid-Century Insurance Company shall file an answe...
2019.1.25 Motion for Summary Judgment 303
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...ff seeks summary adjudication on her first cause of action for breach of contract and her second cause of action for Violation of Business and Professions Code section 22370, et seq. Plaintiff contends that she has met her burden and has made a prima facie showing that she is entitled to summary adjudication on these two causes of action and that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there are any genuine disputes of material fact. Although ...
2019.1.25 Motion to Dismiss, to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action, for Trial Preference 998
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...son, in his capacity as holder of durable power of attorney for healthcare and financial power of attorney. It contains an agreement to submit to non-binding mediation before taking any legal action, as well as a binding arbitration provision. Defendants Oakmont Mariner Point LLC, Oakmont Management Group LLC and William P. Gallaher move to dismiss this action on the grounds that plaintiff failed to fulfil the condition precedent of mediation and...
2019.1.25 Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default 709
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...ebruary 22, 2019 at 1:30 P.M. in Department 19<0053005c00030052004900 03[ his proposed answer with the motion. Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) states in part that a motion made under this section “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted…” (Code Civ. Proc. §473(b).) Here, although Defendant's motion appears to be justifie...
2019.1.25 Motion to Transfer Venue, for Sanctions 427
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Daum, Elliot L
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ... 2) intentional interference with contractual relations; and 3) misappropriation of trade secrets. In essence, the Complaint alleges that while employed by Plaintiff in positions of confidence, and using Plaintiff's resources, the Individual Defendants formed their own company, defendant HOA LLC, and solicited Plaintiff's clients in an effort to take them away from Plaintiff and to HOA LLC. This matter is on calendar for a motion by Defendants to...
2019.1.25 Motion to Vacate Entry of Default, Judgment 753
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.1.25
Excerpt: ...efault and default judgment. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the various documents filed in support of its request for entry of default judgment is granted as to the fact the documents were filed but not for the truth of the matters asserted therein. First, Latora argues he was not properly served with the summons and complaint in this action, therefore, the default and default judgment are void pursuant to CCP §473(d). As summarized ...
2018.8.9 Motion to Vacate Stay 817
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.8.9
Excerpt: ...d therefore, the stay should be lifted and the matter should proceed in the trial court. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that when the applicant for a stay is in default of the arbitration rules, a court may modify or dissolve a stay as a matter of equity. Plaintiff argues that if the stay is not lifted, Plaintiff will be left without a forum to adjudicate her claims. Defendants oppose the motion and citing only to the recent case Weiler v. Marc...
2018.8.9 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 722
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.8.9
Excerpt: ..., 2015, which required Defendant to make certain installment payments to Plaintiff until the agreed upon amount was paid in full. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant breached the agreement when it defaulted on the remaining balance due and owing to Plaintiff. Defendant has not opposed the motion. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Unless Defendant contests the tentative, the Court will sign the Order and Judgment lodged with the motion. “The public po...
2018.8.9 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 892
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.8.9
Excerpt: ...o triable issues of material fact. Specifically, Defendants argue that the Duuses cannot establish a claim for contribution because Plaintiff Cohasset Beach Recovery, LLC (“Cohasset”), not the Duuses, paid the settlement to Timberland Bank. Thus, according to Defendants, because the Duuses did not make the payment directly to Timberland, i.e., they created a third party sole purpose LLC to make the payment; the Duuses as individuals are not e...
2018.8.8 OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 464
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.8.8
Excerpt: ...Road, and/or interfering with Plaintiff Rips Redwood LLC's (Plaintiff) use of Miller Ridge Road. The Plaintiff contends that the previous owners of the parcel that it has owned since 2012 have used the Miller Ranch Road, which is situated, in part, on the Defendants' property, without permission for over 100 years. The Plaintiff argues that given the historical, and adverse, use of the Road, a prescriptive easement has been created. The Plaintiff...
2018.8.8 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 671
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.8.8
Excerpt: ...efendant's motion argues that it cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employee when that employee became intoxicated after stealing wine and caused the injuries alleged in the Complaints. The Defendant argues that under settled principles of respondeat superior it is not liable as Mr. Hoberg's actions deviated from his duties and were in direct contravention of the Defendant's polices against the consumption of alcohol. Further, ...
2018.8.8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 826
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.8.8
Excerpt: ...orcement of a written agreement. The Defendant relies on Exhibit C to the FAC, which she contends demonstrates that the Plaintiff was on notice of the breach of the agreement by August 6, 2012. Further, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's “contingency argument” i.e. that the Defendant's obligations under the agreement were contingent on the sale of the yacht, also result in a bar by the statute of limitations because the yacht was sold ...
2018.8.2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 482
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.2
Excerpt: ...nth. Pursuant to the TRO plaintiffs have been paying that monthly sum, but they are not residing at the property because it required post-fire repairs to make it habitable. Plaintiffs assert – at least in their moving papers – that the home is now habitable and seek a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring Wallahan to let them move back in pending resolution of their claims at trial. As cited in Davenport v. Blue Cross of California (1997...
2018.8.1 Motion to Compel Further Responses 342
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...Defendant contends it was not obligated to reimburse Plaintiff because California regulations provide an exception to the reimbursement rule if the employee's wages are at least two times the minimum wage. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-9. The court finds Plaintiff's motion is well-taken as CRC's responses are not code- compliant. Specifically, as argued by Plaintiff, CRC has failed ...
2018.8.1 Motion for Attorney Fees 193
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...ounty now moves for attorney fees pursuant to Government Code section 25845(c) and Sonoma County Code section 1-7(b). The County contends it is the prevailing party and seeks a total of $38,964.50 in attorney fees. Those fees were incurred between December 2016 and April 2018. Defendant opposes the motion. He argues “the issue of prevailing party is not clear, and can be equally claimed by defendant.” (Opposition, 2:10-11.) Defendant further ...
2018.8.1 Motion to Vacate Dismissal 323
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...13. (Burnstad Decl., ¶5, Exh. 5.) The court's order specifically retained jurisdiction over the parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement. Defendant defaulted on monthly payments required under the settlement agreement. (Burnstad Decl., ¶7.) The settlement agreement provides that upon default, the unpaid balance, less any amount paid prior to default shall be accelerated and become due and payable. (Burnstad ...
2018.8.1 Motion to Consolidate 337
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...led in the two cases is granted. On the merits, the court is inclined to grant the motion. Consolidation appears proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 as the actions involve common questions of law and fact. Additionally, the motion is timely made, consolidation would not make the case too complex for the jury and it would not prejudice the parties. However, the motion is procedurally defective because it fails to substantially comply...
2018.8.1 Motion to Vacate Judgment 813
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ......
2018.8.1 Petition to Confirm Arbitration 086
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...r (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1106.) However, the response was untimely served and filed, therefore, the court has not considered it. “In order to comply with the purpose of expeditious resolution of disputes through arbitration, time limits in which to challenge arbitration awards must be strictly enforced.” (Knass v. Blue Cross of California (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 390, 395.) Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6, the response must be ser...
2018.7.27 Demurrer 081
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...e a cause of action. The demurrer for uncertainty is overruled. Request for judicial notice granted. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. ...
2018.7.27 Demurrer 675
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ... were, who made the misrepresentations or concealed information, when and who, and how Plaintiff relied on them. He pleads these elements with specificity for the intentional fraud claims. Moreover, negligent misrepresentation is a form of negligence and not subject to the strict particularity pleading requirement. The court also notes that Plaintiff does not expressly identify such a cause of action. The prevailing party is to prepare an order c...
2018.7.27 Motion to Compel Release of Mental Records 969
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...ood cause, the motion is couched improperly and based in part on inapplicable authority. Defendants also brought the motion after first, improperly, serving Plaintiff with a demand for the second exam for obtaining leave to do so. Moreover, Defendants themselves demonstrate that they already knew about the full range and nature of Plaintiff's injuries and treatment, including the neurological component, due to Plaintiff's allegations in the compl...
2018.7.27 Petition to Compel Arbitration 411
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...on with Plaintiff until May 25, 2018. Moreover, in its CMC statement filed Feb. 9, 2018, Defendant made no mention of arbitration; Defendant checked the boxes stating that it would be willing to take part in mediation, but did not check the box stating that it intended to take part in binding private arbitration, which it now demands. It also stated that it was conducting discovery “per code.” This specifically included written discovery, Pla...
2018.7.25 Motion for Protective Order 164
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...owed to perform the IME. The Plaintiff relies on the opinion of Dr. Mary Ann Yael Kim, who asserts that the contacts between the Plaintiff and Dr. Frankel amounts to “multiple relationships” that create a conflict of interest. Further, the Plaintiff contends that Dr. Frankel is acting as a member of the defense team, in his capacity as an attorney, raising additional questions about Dr. Frankel's independence. In the alternative, the Plaintif...
2018.7.25 Motion to Continue Trial, for Summary Judgment, to Appoint Successor 133
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...correspond to the new trial date. The matter is set for a Case Management/Trial Setting Conference on August 30, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 17 of this court. Defendants' counsel shall draft an order consistent with the court's ruling. Motion for Summary Judgment: The parties are ordered to appear to discuss continuance of the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion for Order to Appoint Decedent's Successor in Interest to Continue A...
2018.7.25 Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 149
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...kenly believed that she did not need to respond to the Complaint until the date stated on the summons for <00560058004f0057000300 00b30050004c00560057[ake,” Defendant did not file a responsive pleading and a default was entered against her. Plaintiff opposes the motion on procedural and substantive grounds. First, Plaintiff argues that the motion is procedurally defective because Defendant failed to attach a copy of the proposed responsive plea...
2018.7.25 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 544
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...ses of action. Plaintiffs bring the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a) and 576 and on the grounds that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments and it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy to allow Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint. Defendants have not opposed the motion. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their First Amended...
2018.7.25 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 595
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...ch adds a claim for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004; and an Order deeming the FAC responded to with defendant Atech Logistics, Inc.'s (“Defendant”) original answer. Plaintiff also requests that the Court set a hearing date for the final approval process. Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil <0003004400510047000300 00550052005800510047[s that the proposed settlement is sufficiently “fair...
2018.7.25 Motion to Amend Judgment 248
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...e Trustee. The Defendant and Judgment Debtor, Louie I. Mughannam (the Defendant) has filed an opposition, arguing that he was never served with the complaint. Further, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate (under the cited authority) that the Trustee should be added as an additional judgment debtor. Further, the Defendant contends that the Trust assets are not subject to execution, and that the Plaintiffs were aware ...
2018.7.25 Motion for Declaratory Judgment 967
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...ontain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (See CRC 3.1113(b); see Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Assocs., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [a trial court is not required to “comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide”].) ...
2018.7.25 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 455
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...428.50 because D4E did not obtain the necessary leave of court before filing either cross-complaint. Additionally, Brit demurs to the FACC pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(f)-(g) and on the grounds that the sixth cause of action for “breach of the insuring contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealings (sic)” is uncertain, unintelligible and does not state the nature of the contract upon which it is based. D4E opposes...
2018.7.25 Demurrer 672
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...th, and twelfth causes of action. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the seventh, eighth, and eleventh causes of action. Second Cause of Action – Lack of Informed Consent Plaintiff alleges Dr. Smida failed to obtain her informed consent for the procedures performed. Defendants demur to this claim on the following grounds: (1) this cause of action is duplicative of the first cause of action for professional negligence; (2) th...
2018.7.25 Demurrer 107
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...4c00 00480003005200490003[Action for Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, and the Seventh Cause of Action for Tortious Interference with Expected Inheritance” and “fails to state a cause of action as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Second Cause of Action for Promissory Fraud, Third Cause of Action for Constructive Fraud, the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Elder Abuse, the Sixth Cause of Action fo...
2018.7.25 Motion to Compel Further Responses 342
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...ly for the cost of his hand tools. Defendant contends it was not obligated to reimburse Plaintiff because California regulations provide an exception to the reimbursement rule if the employee's wages are at least two times the minimum wage. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories in order to obtain: the identities and contact information of other technicians/mechanics of Defendant who earned less than $21 per hour; ...
2018.7.20 Motion to Compel Further Responses 552
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.20
Excerpt: ...tion at issue because it is directly related to the substantive issues of liability. The responses, largely identical objections repeated with a few minor variations for all the items at issue, are improper and unpersuasive. Plaintiffs are to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. The court will reserve its decision on sanctions. ...
2018.7.20 Motion to Change Venue 686
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.20
Excerpt: ...ant Kingsfield is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. First Amended Complaint pages 5‐6. Defendants thus meet their burden of demonstrating that venue is not proper here and is proper in Contra Costa. Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper here because Defendants called him while he was in Sonoma County. A transaction conducted over the telephone could potentially make venue proper in this county, for example if Plaintiff entered into the alleged ...
2018.7.6 Demurrer 850
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...he document relied on by Fay to demonstrate that the subject loan was not assumable only states that the loan is not assumable upon sale. The Plaintiff argues that because she assumed the loan on the death of her parents that provision is not applicable. The Plaintiff argues that snice she provided Fay with the necessary documentation regarding the death of her parents, it was obligated to allow her to apply to assume the loan. The Plaintiff cont...
2018.7.6 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 202
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...pleaded with the requisite particularity, Plaintiff shall bring a properly noticed motion for leave to amend.” (See, Court's May 8, 2018 Order Sustaining Defendant's Demurrer.) Plaintiff brings this motion in response to the Court's ruling and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to (1) add new legal claims to clarify a previously existing cause of action; (2) add ...
2018.7.6 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 670
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...otion was filed. Therefore, Defendants could have addressed the merits of the proposed amendments in their opposition but chose not to do so. The court notes that this case was filed in December 2017 and trial is not yet set. Based on the reply and the fact this case is in the relatively early stages, the court is satisfied that the motion for leave to file the FAC should be granted rather than requiring Plaintiffs to re-file this motion merely t...
2018.7.6 Motion for Summary Judgment 686
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...sign of the intersection and warning signals; Defendant Tognozzi already knew of the intersection, stop light, and configuration so lack of warning was not a cause of the accident; and Tognozzi caused the accident by looking at his phone while driving. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. ...
2018.7.6 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 988
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ... they had “actual knowledge” of the dangerous propensities of the dog. The Defendants argue that the undisputed evidence establishes that they had no actual knowledge and therefore cannot be found to have had duty to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff opposes, arguing that the Defendants have not met their burden. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are not providing all of the facts and therefore “have not met their burden of establishing a...
2018.7.6 Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena 926
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...n that she was wrongfully terminated and suffered retaliation from Aurora for internal and external whistleblowing related in part to hospital staffing levels. She also alleges workplace health and safety violations under California's OSHA laws through the enforcement mechanism of the Private Attorneys General Act in the Labor Code. Defendants contend Plaintiff's job performance at Aurora was inadequate, she did not demonstrate adequate knowledge...
2018.7.6 Motion to Strike, Tax Costs 950
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...try of judgment was served on April 10, 2018. The court further notes that no notice of appeal has been field in this matter. Accordingly, since the only reason presented by the Plaintiff for strike or holding in abeyance, and no appeal having been made, the court will deny this request. The Plaintiff also seeks to tax certain costs, specifically, $60 filing fee associated with the Defendant's demurrer, $60 filing fees associated with a motion to...
2018.7.6 Motion to Transfer Venue 877
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...or personal property, in which case the action may be filed in either the county where the defendants reside or the county where the injury occurred. (Code Civ. Proc. §395(a).) Defendant argues that this case, which alleges a single cause of action for malicious prosecution, is not an action for injury to person or personal property and therefore must be transferred to Mendocino County, which is where Defendant “resided” at commencement of t...
2018.7.6 Motion to Transfer Venue 543
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...s that it is made in Sonoma County and was to be performed in Sonoma County while the Watters Declaration adds that Plaintiff performed the work in Sonoma County and Defendant paid Plaintiff in Sonoma County. Objections overruled. However, the objections and the evidence which they attack have no impact on the outcome of this motion. Request for sanctions is denied. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the Cour...

2570 Results

Per page

Pages