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

2596 Results

Location: Sonoma x
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...
2018.7.27 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 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. ...
2018.7.25 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; ...
2018.7.25 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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...
2018.7.20 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 ...
2018.7.18 Motion to Compel Responses 619
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.18
Excerpt: ...ons, within ten days of this order. Further, the Plaintiff is entitled to $560.00 in sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020(c), 708.030(c), 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c).) Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Plaintiff is to draft an order consistent with this ruling. ...
2018.7.18 Motion to Compel Further Responses 103
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.18
Excerpt: ... Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Granted<004a000300530044005500 00480003> <000300520045004d004800 0051004700030047004c>d not provide <005700480050000f000300 00520045004d00480046>tions appear invalid on their face. Absent a declaration of necessity, a responding party still must respond to the first 35 such interrogatories and Norcal did not do <0046000c00110003003a00 0046004f004400550044>tion of necessity, as Plaintiffs provid...
2018.7.18 Motion for Summary Judgment 050
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.18
Excerpt: ...'s complaint. Further, the Defendant argues that there was no ostensible authority over the dentists involved. The only services the Defendant provided to Defendant Boseovski pertained to: (1) Office Space, Furnishing, and Equipment, (2) In-Center Laboratory Services, (3) Staffing and Human Resources Assistance, (4) Inventory and Supplies, (5) Legal Services, (6) Marketing, (7) Financial Services, (8) Insurance, and (9) Information Technology. Th...
2018.7.18 Motion to Compel Further Responses 296
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.18
Excerpt: ...are not well-taken. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of issuing “boiler-plate” objections, and asserting privileges (attorney client/work-product, privacy) without providing a privilege log. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of requiring a higher bar for discovery, i.e. admissibility, versus the actual standard, i.e. could potentially lead to admissible evidence. The Plaintiff avers that he and the Defendant met and conferred, which resu...
2018.7.11 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal 213
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.11
Excerpt: ...ndant to submit a <00030057004b004c005600 0057004c005200510003>will be considered a waiver of those fees and costs. The court will reset the OSC re dismissal to September 25, 2018 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 18. The Plaintiffs shall draft an order consistent with this ruling. ...
2018.7.11 Motion to Compel Deposition, Responses, Deem Admissions Admitted 677
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.11
Excerpt: ...itten Discovery.”) The Plaintiff states that no response to this discovery was received. The Plaintiff also contends that he served a notice of deposition on the Defendant for a deposition to occur on March 29, 2018. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not appear, nor provide any indication of unavailability. In response to the Defendant's failure to provide responses or to appear at deposition, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion t...
2018.7.11 Motion for Further Responses 163
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.11
Excerpt: ...relevant from discovery. That being said, the court is sensitive to the claimed confidentiality, and will order the parties to meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to enter into a protective order to shield these documents. Further, as to the claims of privilege, the court will order any asserted privilege to be noted in a privilege log. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ordered to provide a code compliant response, and to produce all non-priv...
2018.7.11 Demurrer 221
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.11
Excerpt: ...�� but fails to provide in what capacity the Plaintiff is acting with respect to the claims in the Complaint. The Defendant also contends that the entire Complaint is uncertain. The Defendant also demurrers to each of the causes of action as discussed below. The demurrer has not drawn opposition, however, on July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. If a demurrer is filed a plaintiff only has a right to amend the complaint up to th...
2018.7.10 Petition to Compel Arbitration 390
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.10
Excerpt: ... to stay the present civil action pending a resolution of the arbitration. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. For good cause shown, Defendant's unopposed motion to compel arbitration and for a stay of the present action is GRANTED. For calendar control purposes, a Case Management Conference is scheduled for July 11, 2019 at 3:00 pm in Department 19. Both federal and California law embrace a liberal policy favoring arbitration. (Armendariz v. F...
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...
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 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...
2018.6.29 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 208
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.6.29
Excerpt: ...ause of action for false promise and Sunhill clearly and specifically alleges that Cross‐defendants falsely promised to comply with the new contractual terms in order to induce Sunhill to enter into the new Lease, expend large sums of money on improving the premises, and release the personal guaranty of Steve Maass. Sunhill has leave to amend within 20 days of the service of the notice of entry of this order. Cross‐Defendants are to serve the...
2018.6.27 Motion to Appoint Discovery Referee, for Preliminary Injunction 943
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...l parties. 2. District's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction The second motion is the District's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Bordessas from interfering with the District's rights under its “Trail Easement.” As an initial matter, the Court notes the confused and contradictory representations in the District's motion as to whether this motion relates to the “Trail Easement,” the “Conservation Easement,” or both. Fo...
2018.6.27 Demurrer 727
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...ion arises out of the Sonoma County Fires in October 2017 and allegations by multiple Plaintiffs that Defendant United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) underinsured many of their policy holders. The First Amended Complaint alleges that USAA used a home valuation software called “Xactware” (produced by Defendant Xactware Solutions Inc.) that systematically under-estimated the replacement cost of its policyholders' homes, despite it...
2018.6.27 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 683
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...l misrepresentation; and (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants' unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. The court notes that while the apparent stipulation attached as Exhibit B to Mr. Kawar's declaration may ultimately severely restrict Plaintiff's recovery, the court is bound by the allegations of the SAC and matters subject to judicial notice in deciding the demurrer and motion to strike. (Blank v....
2018.6.27 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 350
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...e Net Settlement Amount), and an award to the Class Representative for his service as a representative in the amount not to exceed $15,000. The Plaintiffs argue that the settlement is fair in light of the arms- length negotiations which included mediation. No objections have been lodged. A party to the settlement agreement may bring a noticed motion for preliminary approval. CRC Rule 3.769(c) states, in full, “[a]ny party to a settlement agreem...
2018.6.27 Motion to Vacate Default Judgment 985
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...s motion is GRANTED and the judgment entered against Defendant on March 18, 2015 shall be vacated and the case is dismissed without prejudice. The Code provides that “[t]he court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment...
2018.6.27 Motion to Bifurcate 394
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...an and Brady Schalich's property (‘Upper Fitzpatrick Lane').” Plaintiff proposes that “[i]f Upper Fitzpatrick Lane is public or Plaintiff has prescriptive easement rights, then Plaintiff would also present evidence of damages caused by the Schalich's blocking of Upper Fitzpatrick Lane.” (See, Notice at 2:8-15; see also, MPA at 3:14-26.) Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 598 and on the grounds that th...
2018.6.27 Motion to Compel Responses 741
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...cludes $2,790 in attorneys' fees based on 6.5 hours of attorney time, billed at $450 an hour, plus a $90 filing fee. Thus, although Defendants represent that their fees are $450 an hour and their attorneys billed 6.5 hours related to this motion, which amounts to $2,925; Defendants are apparently only seeking $2,790 in sanctions related to this motion. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on several grounds. First, Plaintiffs state that they served verif...
2018.6.27 Motion to Exclude Expert 273
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...int is unpersuasive. Although Fairfax involved medical malpractice and expert testimony as to the standard of care for doctors, in the instant case for professional negligence by a real estate agent, the complaint clearly puts at issue the standard of care applicable to real estate agents. It should have been no surprise to Arshi that Plaintiff disclosed an expert who would testify as to this standard of care. The court by its ruling does not add...
2018.6.27 Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas 020
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ...s, notes, mortgages, and deeds of trust included in the acquisition[;]” and (2) “the original promissory note, and original deed of trust and the original 2046 Balance Sheet for Loan #0044773 703 World Savings Bank Loan which was signed on December 22, 2006 by Mel Harold and Rena Harold.” (See, Motion at 2:7-12; Armstrong Dec. at ¶3; Sep. St. at 2:5-8 and 5:21-23.) In subsequent correspondence, Plaintiffs clarified that “[w]e are not ask...
2018.6.27 Demurrer 062
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.6.27
Excerpt: ... T. Auman, which is how the original Complaint was filed. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the demurrer should be sustained because the causes of action in the Cross-Complaint do not arise out of the same “transaction or series of transactions” as the underlying complaint to justify adding the new parties. Further, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has brought her claim in the incorrect forum because Defendant's claims relate to trust admini...

2596 Results

Per page

Pages