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
2019.2.27 Motion to Quash Service 262
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...preme Court of the State of New York, County of New York entitled Brembo S.p.A. v. T.A.W. Performance Index No. 654931/2017 (the New York Case) which it argues involves the same Distribution Agreement as in the instant case. For the reasons explained below, the court finds that Brembo is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore the service of summons is properly quashed. Quash Summons Based on a Lack of Jurisdiction Amended Com...
2019.2.27 Motion to Compel Deposition, for Production of Docs, for Monetary Sanctions 756
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...e any documents; and failed to provide any dates for the commencement of the <000f0003004c0051000300 005c000f00030033004f[aintiff acknowledges that since the filing of the motion, the parties have agreed to a deposition date of February 25, 2019, which is only two days before this scheduled hearing. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the hearing remain on calendar and despite the agreement on a deposition date, Plaintiff continues to request an order ...
2019.2.27 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 135
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...ts a motion directed to a prior complaint. [Citation.] Thus, once an amended complaint is filed, it is error to grant <00570044004c0051004800 005500480059004c0052[us complaint. [Citation.] As our colleagues in Division Two have explained, “a court granting plaintiff leave to amend a cause of action should not at the same time attempt to summarily adjudicate material issues which underlie that same cause of action. After a cause of action is ame...
2019.2.27 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 119
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...igence; 2) breach of contract; 3) breach of implied warranties; 4) – 5) breach of express warranty; and 6) – 7) claim on contractor's license bond (against the sureties). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs entered into an Owners Contract Agreement with Defendant Ken Medrano, individually and dba Kendell Brook Builders (“Defendant Medrano”), and that as part of the work to be completed, Defendant Medrano retained Jack Shapiro and Shapir...
2019.2.27 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 619
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...l infliction of emotional distress (against defendant Drew); and 3) negligent infliction of emotional distress (against defendant CSAA). This matter is on calendar for the demurrer by CSAA and Drew pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 430.10(d) and 430.10(e) on the basis that they have been misjoined and that Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. That Demurrer is SUSTAINED without ...
2019.2.27 Demurrer 692
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...l infliction of emotional distress (against defendant Drew); and 3) negligent infliction of emotional distress (against defendant CSAA). This matter is on calendar for the demurrer by CSAA and Drew pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 430.10(d) and 430.10(e) on the basis that they have been misjoined and that Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. That Demurrer is SUSTAINED without ...
2019.2.27 Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice 055
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.27
Excerpt: ...ith the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed...
2019.2.22 Motion for Interlocutory Judgment on the Pleadings 191
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ... filed a general denial in response in which he also stated that “the parties are equal co-owners of the subject property.” However, Bowen later filed an amended general denial in which he now states that he disputes the parties have an equal ownership interest in the property. He alleges he is entitled to more than one-half the property based on money owed him for back-rent, reimbursement for time and money he spent on property maintenance, ...
2019.2.22 Motion for Summary Judgment 050
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...ges that on or about January 25, 2016, the defendants and their agents obtained x-rays and then the next day, January 26, 2016, extracted all 20 of her remaining teeth and that they were negligent and careless in their diagnosis, treatment planning, and treatment. (Compl. ¶ 6.) The grounds for the Motion are that Moving Defendant provided business support services to Dr. Boseovski and the undisputed evidence precludes an agency theory of liabili...
2019.2.22 Motion for Summary Judgment 135
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...ontrary. Defendant also presents no facts or evidence in opposition. Defendant instead objects to Plaintiff's evidence, particularly the documents in Exhibit B, as inadmissible hearsay which does not meet the requirements for the business-records exception under Evidence Code section 1271. Evidence Code section 1271 governs the admissibility of business records, and information therefrom, as an exception to the hearsay rule. It states, in full, �...
2019.2.22 Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay 276
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...er 9, 2016. The Complaint contains a single cause of action for premises liability. This matter is on calendar for Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and California Arbitration Act on the basis that: 1) Plaintiff received the benefits conferred by the terms of service containing the agreement to arbitrate disputes “arising out of or related to” the use of Airbnb's platform, wh...
2019.2.22 Motion to Consolidate 773
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...on Insurance Fund's unopposed motion to consolidate its Subrogation Action with this case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1048(a). CCP section 1048(a) provides: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning procee...
2019.2.22 Motion to Reopen Discovery 455
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...170011001300 005100030057004b0048[ grounds that there is “good cause” for the Court to exercise its discretion and reopen discovery on this limited issue and that Defendant will not suffer prejudice if discovery is reopened and limited as requested. Defendants oppose the motion and contend that Plaintiff has known about Defendants' contractual limitation of liability defense for 15 years and has chosen to ignore it. Thus, Defendants aver that...
2019.2.22 Motion to File Amended and Supplemental Complaint 939
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ... defendants. Therefore, plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplemental complaint based on the new facts that have arisen since plaintiff filed her original complaint. She concedes these new facts give rise to new causes of action which also necessitates adding parties as defendants. Plaintiff also appears to argue that she has amendments to make to her complaint based on the fact she dismissed some defendants from certain causes of action. Defendan...
2019.2.22 Motion to Set Aside Dismissal 738
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...ntiff's Motion is GRANTED. Unless this tentative ruling is contested, <0057004800470003005a00 005000520057004c0052[n. Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief from an entry of default. (See, Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 838– 839; see also, Benedict v. Danner Press (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 923, 927.) As relevant here, the mandatory re...
2019.2.22 Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default 192
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ... have not filed an opposition to the motion. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file his proposed answer within five days of service of the Court's final ruling on this motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides for both discretionary and mandatory relief from an entry of default. (See, Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 838– 839; see also, Benedict v. Danner Pr...
2019.2.22 Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default 687
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...counsel states in his declaration that entry of default was “due to my inadvertence, mistake and neglect.” (Decl. of Reustle, ¶24.) Under the circumstances, “relief is available regardless of whether the attorney's neglect is excusable.” (J.A.T. Entertainment, Inc. v. Reed (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1492.) Accordingly, the court shall grant the motion and direct defendants' counsel to pay plaintiff $1,965 in reasonable compensatory ...
2019.2.22 Motion to Strike or Tax Costs 273
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...n Arshi carrying a loan in the amount of $72,500. The promissory note for Arshi's loan to plaintiff, among other things, was a main issue in this case. After a court trial, judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff filed a costs memo and Arshi now moves to strike or tax costs. Per CCP §1032(a)(4), a prevailing party includes the party with a net monetary recovery. Here, the court finds plaintiff was the prevailing party. In this actio...
2019.2.22 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award 582
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.22
Excerpt: ...osition that the petition must be denied because a copy of the agreement to arbitrate is not attached to the petition as required by CCP §1285.4(a). On the merits, respondent argues the award must vacated because: (1) the arbitrator exceeded his power and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted; and (2) respondent's rights were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of the arbitra...
2019.2.15 Demurrer 393
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.2.15
Excerpt: ...rsion and negligence regarding the property do not indicate that a bailment occurred as a matter of law or that Plaintiff in any way willingly left the property with Defendant or entered into an agreement with him regarding it. It is also not certain when the injury, or knowledge thereof, finally occurred for the cause of action to accrue. Finally, the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is based not only on the alleg...
2019.2.13 Motion to Tax Costs 598
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...ants contend are “duplicative, unnecessary, and unreasonable.” Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated he was unable to find local counsel to handle this case and thus, travel costs incurred by Plaintiff's are not “reasonable” and should not be recovered. Plaintiff opposes the motion and argues that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, a memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the costs were “necessarily i...
2019.2.13 Motion to Revise Order 754
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...hat the damages awardable to Plaintiff from Defendant Mejia on the first cause of action for breach of contract are $600,000 plus allowable interest and costs, as evidenced by the undisputed facts (the “Notice”). The Notice indicated that the Court intends to issue a new order which is the same as the MSA Order except that page 5, lines 8-9 would read: “Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to summary adjudication on its breach of contract...
2019.2.13 Motion to Quash Subpoenas, to Compel Mental Exam 957
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ... driven decisions. And, in February 2016, Judy's primary care physician deemed her permanently incapacitated. However, in March and June 2016, Judy made substantial changes to the 2005 Gappa Trust with the assistance of a different attorney. Changes made in 2016 included Joe resigning as co-trustee and the appointment of a private fiduciary, Shelley Ocaña, as co-trustee along with Judy. It also appears that Judy was designated as Joe's attorney-...
2019.2.13 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 714
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...ED. This case arises out of allegations of defects in fiber cement panels installed at plaintiff Timothy Mott's (“Plaintiff's”) home located at 1861 Hale Road, Sonoma (the “Panels”). According to USAP's Motion, the Panels were purchased by Ryan from USAP who had in turn purchased them from Plycem USA, Inc. (USAP had contended that Plycem USA, LLC (“Plycem”) assumed Plycem USA, Inc.'s liabilities in a merger.) Plaintiff sued general co...
2019.2.13 Motion for Conditional Certification of Class and Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement 194
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...plaint The presently operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation as required by the California Labor Code (“LC”) and applicable wage orders because it calculated overtime based on employees' base hourly wages and did not take into account all applicable non-discretionary bonuses earned during the applicable pay period; non-discretionary bonuses paid during the applicable pay period ...

2596 Results

Per page

Pages