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

2604 Results

Location: Sonoma x
2020.05.29 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 258
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.05.29
Excerpt: ...ivil Procedure section 526(a)(2); Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. Cal. Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084. The requirement that the injury be “imminent” simply means that the party to be enjoined is, or realistically is likely to, engage in the prohibited action. Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church, supra. The irreparable injury will exist if the party seeking the injunction will be seriously injured in a way that late...
2020.05.29 Demurrers 383
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.05.29
Excerpt: ...right of reentry during the unexpired term of the original lease. See, Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 488, 492, fn.2; Cobb v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 345, 352; Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co. (1937) 10 Cal.2d 232, 242-243. Assignment or a novation transferring all rights and obligations of the original tenant to a new tenant by agreement between the landlord, o...
2020.05.29 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, for Attorneys' Fees 733
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.05.29
Excerpt: ...uit but not of the Settlement. Upon further review of the Declaration of Attorney John Scheppach, the Court is satisfied notice of the settlement was provided to LWDA. Motion is GRANTED. The determination granting the motion and final approval of the Settlement will include the request for attorneys' fees and costs, payment of administrator expenses, and enhancement for named class Member Andrew Pomele, all made as part of this motion. The Court ...
2020.05.20 Petition for Writ of Mandate for Failure to Provide Fair Hearing 378
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ...rit of mandate, “[t]he inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.” In such cases, where “the issue is whether a fair administrative hearing was conducted, the petitioner is entitled to an independent judicial determination of the issue.” Pomona Valley Hospital Med...
2020.05.20 Motion to Strike Complaint 069
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ...esolving the merits of a section 425.16 motion involves a two-part analysis, concentrating initially on whether the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity within the meaning of the statute and, if it does, proceeding secondly to whether the plaintiff can establish a probability of prevailing on the merits. (Ampex Corp. v. Cargle (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1569.) The court accepts as true all evidence favorable to the plaintiff and ...
2020.05.20 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Sanctions 580
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Boyd, Robert S
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ...s 5, 9, and 10 as well as Broadhead interrogatories 3 and 5, those for which Plaintiffs provided amended responses after Defendants filed this motion. Technically, Defendants should address these in a new motion instead of simply the reply. That said, in the interests of economy, the Court finds the motion unpersuasive as to these on the merits, for the reasons explained below. The Court grants the motion as to requiring Plaintiffs to indicate wh...
2020.05.20 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Sanctions 518
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Boyd, Robert S
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ...f Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, 2031.310. The moving party must make adequate attempts to meet and confer. Ibid. Generally, once a timely, proper motion to compel further responses has been made, the responding party has the burden to justify objections or incomplete answers. Coy v. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. Objections at Issue The objection based on the Fifth Amendment privilege seems to be the focus of this motion and the par...
2020.05.20 Motion to Compel Further Responses 471
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ...e court finds defendant has failed to establish that responding pursuant to CCP §2030.230 is sufficient under the circumstances. CCP § 2030.230 provides: If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same fo...
2020.05.20 Motion to Change Venue 658
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ...2) conversion; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of duty of loyalty; (6) tortious interference with economic relations; (7) fraud; (8) trade libel; and (9) unfair competition. As alleged in the complaint, AMLG is doing business in Sonoma County, and Henderson was at all relevant times residing in Monterey County. (Complaint, ¶¶3&4.) Henderson moves to change venue from Sonoma Count...
2020.05.20 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 384
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Boyd, Robert S
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ... that required its use. (Ibid.) As a result of Defendant's failure to provide such protection, Plaintiff fell and suffered serious injuries. (Ibid.) The Complaint contends that under the rebuttable presumption in Labor Code section 2750.5, Plaintiff must be considered an “employee” of Defendant and not an “independent contractor” because Plaintiff was performing services for which a license was required, regardless of whether Plaintiff wa...
2020.05.20 Motion for Summary Adjudication 159
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.05.20
Excerpt: ...e. Defendants move for summary adjudication of the second cause of action, which seeks to quiet title based on plaintiffs' alleged adverse possession of a portion of the real property that has been improved over the years. “The elements of adverse possession are as follows: ‘(1) Possession must be by actual occupation under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner. (2) It must be hostile to the owner's title. (3) The...
2020.05.13 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement 199
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.05.13
Excerpt: ...of judgment. Southern Response's motion is fully briefed and the court finds it appropriate to advance the motion to be heard concurrently with plaintiffs' motion for final approval. Accordingly, the court provides a tentative ruling on both motions below. Defendant Southern Response's Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint Southern Response does not oppose, in principle, the class action settlement between plaintiffs and defendant Interstate R...
2020.05.13 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 179
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.05.13
Excerpt: ...olations on the ground that it is uncertain. The demurrers are SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Third Cause of Action for Fraud and Statutory Violations The parties have agreed that the alleged statutory violations are only against Defendant David Lucas for his alleged failure to provide a 7-Day Right of Cancellation Notice to the Plaintiffs and that the demurrer with regard to statutory violations is moot. With regard to the cause of action as it ...
2020.05.13 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 680
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Boyd, Robert S
Hearing Date: 2020.05.13
Excerpt: ...atment was within the standard of care, and 2) Britt's treatment was within the standard of care. Any “party” may move for summary judgment or adjudication. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a), (f). A party is entitled to summary judgment if demonstrating “that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a). For summary adjudication, the “party” may seek ad...
2020.05.13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 863
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.05.13
Excerpt: ...servicer was not entitled to record a notice of default, or if a notice of default has already been recorded, record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee's sale until the later of… “the later of 15 days after the denial of the appeal or 14 days after a first lien loan modification is offered after appeal but declined by the borrower, or, if a first lien loan modification is offered and accepted after appeal, the date on which the borrower fa...
2020.05.13 Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings 015
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.05.13
Excerpt: ...emic, the matter was continued to May 13, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. in Department 17. The previously posted tentative ruling is as follows: Plaintiff Austin Kooba moves to lift the stay of the proceedings on the grounds that the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim in the first cause of action for Paid Sick Leave is not subject to arbitration because there is no private right of action and because every claim sued under the PAGA i...
2020.03.11 Special Motion to Strike 335
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ... Kay Rudolph (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Defendants alleging a first cause of action for Breach of Contract, a second cause of action for Unfair Employment Practices, and a third cause of action for Hostile Work Environment (“the Complaint”). The Complaint alleges that from June 2005 until August 2018, Plaintiff was the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Assistant Superintendent at Santa Rosa Junior College. (Complaint �...
2020.03.11 Motion to Seal Certificates of Merit and Application to Proceed in Fictitious Name 823
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ...nfidential as they must be reviewed in camera and the contents of the certificates can only be revealed to a prevailing defendant at the conclusion of litigation as specified in subdivision (p) of CCP §340.1. California Rule of Court 2.585 governs confidential in camera reviews and states: (a) Minutes of proceedings If a confidential in-camera proceeding is held in which a party is excluded from being represented, the clerk must include in the m...
2020.03.11 Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement 921
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ...” The written version of the settlement, a written copy of which Defendant provides in the moving papers, is signed November 28, 2017 and likewise expressly states that the Court is to “maintain jurisdiction in order to enforce the terms of this Agreement.” Settlement section 4.16. When a party seeks to enforce a stipulated settlement entered in writing or orally before the court, the court “may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the...
2020.03.11 Motion to Compel Further Responses 477
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ...igently maintained the cross-walk or the crosswalk flashing lights and thus created an unreasonably dangerous condition.(FAC ¶10.) Other attributes contributing to the alleged dangerous condition are the volume and rate of speed of traffic and the limited visibility due to the sun and/or shadows. (FAC ¶12.) On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff served Defendant City with Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One. (Romero Decl. ¶6.) This set of r...
2020.03.11 Motion for Summary Judgment, to Quash Deposition Subpoena 271
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ... or there is a complete defense to every cause of action. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850. A defendant shows that an element cannot be established only if its undisputed facts negate plaintiff's allegations as a matter of law and would make it impossible for plaintiff to show a prima facie case. Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597. Once the moving party has met its...
2020.03.11 Motion for Summary Judgment 498
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ...leges she suffered injuries because the Feeneys failed to “ensure guests left their premises safely.” Specifically, per the complaint, the Feeneys failed to prevent plaintiff from being injured in a fight in their driveway and to organize transportation for plaintiff from their home after the party. Plaintiff also alleges the Feeneys served alcohol and drugs to their guests. The Feeneys move for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff c...
2020.03.11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 296
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ...ire. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “represented that it was knowledgeable of the conditions threatening Plaintiff's home and expressed a willingness to undertake certain duties and responsibilities to protect Plaintiff's home by establishing adequate policy limits." (Complaint at ¶18). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant represented that it would calculate the rebuilding cost of Plaintiff's home and to obtain the actu...
2020.03.11 Motion for Discretionary Relief from Entry of Default 801
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ...ant Superintendent, the school district acknowledges receiving the summons and complaint but believed plaintiff's appeal of its decision was “closed” and that the matter had been concluded. Therefore, the complaint was simply filed in the file related to plaintiff's case and was not forwarded to the district's counsel or claims administrator. (See Mizera Decl., ¶¶ 14-16.) Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted and it shall file a respon...
2020.03.11 Motion for Attorney Fees 254
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2020.03.11
Excerpt: ...e action was filed on April 10, 2019, The parties settled this matter on November 4, 2019, and agreed that plaintiff's attorney fees would be decided by noticed motion. Attorney Fees Defendant FCA opposes the motion. FCA first argues that the plaintiff's counsel's billing records do not apportion fees. Plaintiff's complaint alleged causes of action for (1) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (against FCA and Lithia); (2) Negligent...

2604 Results

Per page

Pages