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
2019.12.18 Motion to Compel Additional Discovery, for Sanctions 534
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ...e court cannot tell if the further responses are adequate. Form Interrogatories Form Interrogatory Number 15 is a basic form interrogatory. It is not overly broad, unduly burdensome, or oppressive. Defendant did not provide the information requested by Form Interrogatory 17.1. A response stating “inability to respond” is legally insufficient. If the responding party lacks personal knowledge sufficient to respond, he or she may so state, but o...
2019.12.18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 499
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Nadler, Gary
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ...aintiff has failed to demonstrate any probability of success on the merits. Plaintiff argues that Defendants may not foreclose on the her real property at 1252 Poplar St., Santa Rosa (“the Property”) while her complete loan modification application is pending, Defendants failed to provide a single point of contact; the loan (“HELOC”) qualifies as a “first lien mortgage or deed of trust” to which Civil Code sections 2923.6 and 2923.7 a...
2019.12.18 Motion to Compel Further Responses, for Summary Judgment 999
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ...ent for more than three minutes on an agenda item at the October 3, 2017 public meeting of the Board. Luke seeks declaratory relief. Petitioner's Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses Petitioner moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, requests 1 through 15 and Special Interrogatories 1 through 44 [1] . The Board responded to the discovery by objecting on various grounds, including that the discovery sough...
2019.12.18 Demurrer 606
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ... conversion range from August 15, 1994, through May 13, 2011. The statute of limitations on the latest transaction, which occurred on May 13, 2011, expired on May 13, 2014. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338.) The complaint was not filed until June 12, 2019. Therefore, the causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff argues that paragraphs 8 through 10 and 15 of the complaint allege concealment of the material facts and infer a lack...
2019.12.18 Motion for Discovery Protective Order, for Appointment of Discovery Referee 574
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ...lifornia Rules of Court, rule 3.920, 3.921. The order must set forth the exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment; the scope of the reference; the referee's name, etc.; the referee's powers and report requirements; and objection requirements; the fees; and a specific finding regarding the parties' ability to pay. Code of Civil Procedure section 639(d); California Rules of Court, rule 3.920(c), 3.922. Such orders are, however, generall...
2019.12.18 Motion to Strike, for Attorney's Fees 139
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ...notes that in a November 1, 2019 meet and confer email from Defendant's counsel (Ms. Gygax) to Plaintiff's counsel (Mr. Miller), Ms. Gygax stated in part that “[u]nless you email me that you are dismissing both actions on Monday November 4, 2019, we shall file a response on Monday when the courts open [following a week long closure due to the Kincaid fires].” (See, Miller Dec. at Ex. E.) Plaintiff filed the dismissal of the entire action on N...
2019.12.18 Motion to Tax Costs, for Attorney Fees 094
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ...19, this court entered a judgment quieting title and granting declaratory relief on the action filed by Michael B. Kuimelis and Lorene Kuimelis. In the order, the court held that Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants were the prevailing parties and “may file a timely Memorandum of Costs.” The Memorandum of Costs was timely filed and served by mail on May 17, 2019. Defendants/Cross-Complainants move to strike or tax certain elements of the costs on the ...
2019.12.18 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 218
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.12.18
Excerpt: ... Defendant's facts. Defendant fails to meet its burden on the first issue, the argument that Plaintiff has demonstrated unclean hands. Any party may move for summary judgment or adjudication. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a), (f). A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if demonstrating “that the action has no merit.” Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a). For summary adjudication, the party may seek adjudication of one or more c...
2019.12.5 Demurrer 010
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...the Trust”), alleges breach of contract causes of action against Nugent. In the cross-complaint, Nugent alleges the following claims against Degenhardt in his individual capacity and in his capacity as trustee of the Trust: (1) damages for breach of fiduciary duty; (2) for return of usurious interest paid and penalties; (3) damages for conversion; and (4) damages for breach of contract. Degenhardt's unopposed request for judicial notice of the ...
2019.12.5 Demurrer 109
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ... section 396a; (3) Code of Civil Procedure section 446; (4) the Complaint fails to state a cause of action; (5) the complaint is based on hearsay in violation of Evidence Code section 1200; (6) the Complaint lacks authentication by a Real Party In Interest; and (7) the Court lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction due to failure of the County to exhaust its administrative remedies. The demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendant is required to ans...
2019.12.5 Demurrer 120
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ... loans worth approximately $10 million, each of which was secured by a deed of trust in one of Plaintiffs' three properties. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs repeatedly defaulted on certain loan covenants and as a result, Defendant notified Plaintiffs that it would impose the default interest rate if the defaults were not cured in 30 days. The first covenant default appears to be in July 2016 and relates to Plaintiffs' violation of Section 6.01...
2019.12.5 Demurrer 197
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...; additional $25,000 “progress payment” due February 1, 2018; $725,000 “private note,” at 5% interest only for 60 months. (FAC at Ex. 1 and FAC at Ex. 1.) Although the original agreement included a “monthly payment” of $2,916.66, “due on the 1st of each month, with the first payment due on 10-01-2017;” Plaintiff's FAC contends that this monthly payment was subsequently changed by oral agreement of the parties to $3,020.83. (Ibid.)...
2019.12.5 Demurrers 716
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...icient to constitute a cause of action for the three causes of action at issue herein. The court notes that Respondents have not demurred to the current 4 th cause of action for writ of mandate based on failure to provide a fair hearing and this order accordingly does not affect that claim. All requests for judicial notice are granted. Background After Petitioners filed this action, Respondents demurred to each cause of action the ground that it ...
2019.12.5 Motion for Punitive Damages Discovery 926
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...defendants' motion to dismiss appears moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Punitive Damages Discovery In this action, plaintiff alleges the following claims: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 6310; (3) retaliation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5; (4) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (5) Private Attorneys General Act enforcement; and (6) in...
2019.12.5 Motion for Summary Judgment 621
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...endant Libeu Cleaning Equipment, LLC, is GRANTED. Defendants' request for judicial notice of plaintiff's complaint in this action is granted. Defendants' objection number one is sustained. Plaintiff has not laid a proper foundation for the police report. In light of this ruling, the remaining objections to the report are moot. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 26, 2016, in Santa Rosa, California between plainti...
2019.12.5 Motion for Summary Judgment 763
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...ndant defaulted on the account and failed to make payments as they became due and owing. (Id. at 3, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 17.) The last payment applied to the account was on or about November 24, 2017. (Id. at 7, 16.) The total amount due and owing is $11,669.91. (Id. at 3, 8, 12 and 17.) Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint on August 2, 2018 and asserts common count causes of action for account stated and open book account. On September 17, 2018,...
2019.12.5 Motion to File Amended Complaint 924
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ...party, it is normally an abuse of discretion to refuse to allow amendment if the denial will deprive a party of a meritorious claim or defense. Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596. Thus, normally delay alone is not a sufficient reason to deny amendment, unless the delay has resulted in prejudice to another party. Hirsa v. Sup. Ct. (Vickers) (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exis...
2019.12.5 Motion for Change of Venue, for Sanctions 927
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.12.5
Excerpt: ... In determining what venue rules to apply, courts look to whether an action is transitory or local. See, Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482, fn.5. This is determined at the outset from the allegations in the original complaint. Ibid. Where the main relief relates to real property rights, the action is local. Ibid. These include actions for recovery of possession of land; injury to real property, such as trespass; partition; foreclosure o...
2019.11.6 Special Motion to Strike 602
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.11.6
Excerpt: ...ey Robert Murray and on September 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case stating that the case would be dismissed no later than November 7, 2018 conditioned on “the satisfactory completion of specified terms that are not to be performed within 45 days of the date of the settlement.” On February 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second notice of settlement which stated the case would be dismissed no later than March 25, 2...
2019.11.6 OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 903
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.11.6
Excerpt: ...aining order and OSC re preliminary injunction on September 12, 2019. Defendant was personally served with the OSC and supporting documents on September 16, 2019, however, no opposition has been timely filed. Per CCP §526(a)(3): “An injunction may be granted in the following cases:…(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some ac...
2019.2.13 Demurrer 360
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...in the FAC are covered by the litigation privilege in Civil Code section 47 and therefore, cannot be the basis for the causes of action asserted. More specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's entire complaint is based upon actions taken by attorneys during the course of representing their client to secure title to a parcel of property owned by their former client. Defendants contend that the litigation privilege applies to the allegations ...
2019.2.13 Demurrer 047
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Dollard, Jennifer V.
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...ime, the fee agreement provided that, “Client acknowledges that Stephen Power has agreed to pay for legal services performed by L&V and authorized L&V to invoice and collect from Mr. Power. Client acknowledges that Client shall be responsible for any fees and costs not paid by Mr. Power or his designee.” (Exh. A to First Amended Complaint.) Stephen Power subsequently paid only part of defendant's fees. L&V filed suit against him in Solano Cou...
2019.2.13 Demurrer 747
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2019.2.13
Excerpt: ...is OVERRULED. The DA brings this action under Business & Profession Code section 17200 et seq. (the “UCL”) to “enjoin [Defendant] from engaging in the unlawful business practices and violations of worker safety laws as alleged herein, and seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution.” (SAC ¶ 7.) The SAC alleges that within four years preceding the filing of the complaint Defendant violated, and continues to violate, the UCL ...
2019.2.1 Motion for Attorney Fees 760
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.2.1
Excerpt: ...o strike, along with the filing fee for this motion. The court has considered the complexity of the legal issues, the length of the motion with supporting documents, and the lack of detail to support the requested costs. This results in $15,170 for attorneys' fees, $337.50 for the paralegal, and the costs of $150, for a total of $15,657.50. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the op...
2019.2.1 Motion to Strike 292
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.2.1
Excerpt: ... stating that they are suing Defendants for engaging in activities which require a permit and for which they have no permit. Courts must look to the “principal thrust or gravamen” of a claim and a party may not invoke the anti-SLAPP statute where the claims involving protected activity are only incidental to a cause of action that is fundamentally based on nonprotected activity. Martinez v. Metabolife Int'l, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 181, 1...

2596 Results

Per page

Pages