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

558 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Sonoma x
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M x
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 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 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...
2019.12.5 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 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 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...
2019.11.20 Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to Discovery 518
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.20
Excerpt: ...ition to Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and he and his family went out of town for 10 days; at the hearing on Plaintiff's motion on August 16, 2019, Plaintiff never mentioned the outstanding discovery, which had been served in July and the due date for which was fast approaching; after the deadline had passed, Plaintiff did not contact him about the discovery. He shows that once he found the discovery requests in September 2019, after the...
2019.11.20 Motion to Quash, Modify or Limit Subpoenas 680
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.20
Excerpt: ...i (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 669, 679. The protection is not absolute and the information is discoverable where the need for discovery outweighs the privacy concerns. Palay v. Sup. Ct. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 919, 933; see also, Britt v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859-862. To overcome the privacy right, the party seeking the information must show a particularized need and that the information is “directly relevant” to a cause of action or defense...
2019.11.20 Motion to Quash, Modify or Limit Subpoenas 476
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.20
Excerpt: ...y privilege set forth in Evidence Code section 1014. Roe v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 832, 837. When seeking information that potentially falls under the right of privacy, the party demanding disclosure must show a particularized need for the confidential information. Merely being relevant to the subject matter is not enough, and the moving party must show that the information is directly relevant to the case, in other words that it is essen...
2019.11.20 Motion to Strike Punitive Damages 847
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.20
Excerpt: ...cedure sections 472, 473. A party may amend any pleading “once … of course, and without costs, at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after demurrer and before the trial of the issue of law thereon ....” Code of Civil Procedure section 472, emphasis added. Defendant Eduardo Juarez Espinosa (“Espinosa”) has already answered and this pending hearing is on for only a motion to strike, not a demurrer. The Court therefore fin...
2019.11.15 Motion to Enter Judgment and Enforce Settlement 208
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.15
Excerpt: ...force the Settlement against the Sunhill Defendants, recognizing that it may not be enforceable against the Trustee. Plaintiff demonstrates that the terms at issue are obligations of Sunhill, Sunhill breached them, and Plaintiff wishes to enforce the Settlement against Sunhill because of Sunhill's breaches. Defendants do not dispute this and no term in the Settlement appears to require all parties to sign it or render it unenforceable against the...
2019.11.15 Motion to Compel Further Responses, Request for Monetary Sanctions 680
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.15
Excerpt: .... However, the information sought in request for admission #4 is improper and discovery is not the method by which to test the nature or number of causes of action in a pleading. The motion is thus denied as to request for admission #4 but granted in all other respects. The objection filed with the reply is OVERRULED. Any request for sanctions is denied as both sides have acted partially with, and partially without, substantial justification. Whe...
2019.11.6 Demurrer 841
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.6
Excerpt: ...r other remedy. However, Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action and the allegations are fundamentally unclear. Nothing indicates what Defendants actually did, who Defendant Claudine Kent even is or how she is involved, what defamation occurred, when, or the context or nature of it. As for demurring party, Plaintiff fails to state any statutory bases of liability, which is required for this Defendant as a gover...
2019.11.6 Motion to Transfer Venue 868
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.11.6
Excerpt: ... 7, 8-9. Venue in transitory actions generally is properly in the county where the defendant resides, with certain exceptions. Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a). Venue in contract actions is also proper where the contract was entered into, i.e., where the words of acceptance were spoken, or where the obligation was to be performed. Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a). Contrary to the rule for actions against individuals, in actions agains...
2019.10.18 Motion for Summary Adjudication 231
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.18
Excerpt: ...eet Defendants' burden, or change the outcome of the motion. The Court notes that both sides establish all of their facts with the following exceptions: in fact 2, Defendants fail to establish that the Lease “requires” Plaintiffs to provide an addendum, or what the term fully means; in response to fact 4, Plaintiffs posit merely argument, not fact. Defendants fail to meet their burden because their position relies on a single asserted interpr...
2019.10.18 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 393
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.18
Excerpt: ... and Plaintiff flatly refused to come get it, did not ask her family to get it, refused repeatedly to respond or make contact with Defendant, and made additional demands on Defendant. Defendant also argues that if this is based on oral contract the statute of limitations ran before Plaintiff filed the complaint. The elements of conversion are 1) plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of personal property; 2) interference with plaintiffs “...
2019.10.9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution 850
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.9
Excerpt: ...l District (“District”) from his position as principal of a local high school to classroom teacher. Behrens filed his complaint on May 21, 2018, asserting causes of action for (1) writ of mandate, (2) violation of his constitutional right to due process (42 U.S.C. §1983) and (3) unlawful retaliation in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.05, subdivision (c). On May 9, 2019, the court denied Behrens's petition for writ of mandate,...
2019.10.2 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 859
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.2
Excerpt: ... (collectively, “the Mahrts”). The Mahrts then promised to rebuild the House, which Plaintiff had still been living in and leasing, and that they would continue to lease it to Plaintiff so he could live there. This allegedly lead him, in reliance on the promises, to provide services to Defendants related to the Premises valued at about $10,000, with the expectation that he could continue to live on the Premises. The Mahrts rebuilt the House b...
2019.10.2 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 321
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2019.10.2
Excerpt: ...de of Civil Procedure section 438(c). When brought by a plaintiff, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be based on the assertion “that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to <0003005200490003002600 00460048004700580055[e section 438(c)(1)(A). Otherwise, the rules governing demurrers basically apply. Cloud v. Northrop Grumman ...
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...
2019.1.25 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 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...
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 ...

558 Results

Per page

Pages