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

105 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Sonoma x
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D x
2019.7.31 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 004
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.7.31
Excerpt: ... in this case.” (See, May 31, 2019 Court Minutes, citing, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter 2018) Chap. 2-B, 2:28.1.) There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has retained an attorney or that a guardian ad litem has been appointed in this case. The demurrer is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10 and 430.30 and on the grounds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to state a valid cause of...
2019.7.24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 381
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...he face of the FAC or matters subject to judicial notice…” (Court's May 22, 2019 Minute Order.) In that Minute Order, the Court pointed out that Defendant had not asked the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff's Government Tort Claim; Defendant's Notice of Rejection; or the fact that the rejection was in writing or in compliance with Government Code section 913. (Ibid.) The Court noted that without these documents, the “purported stat...
2019.7.24 Motion to Quash Subpoenas 256
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.7.24
Excerpt: ...he Complaint, Mr. Corbit's four adult children (“Plaintiffs”) assert various causes of action against Federal Express and Ms. Berry (collectively “Defendants”) related to the accident and allege in part that while driving a Federal Express van, Ms. Berry caused the accident by failing to stop at a stop sign, in violation of California Vehicle Code section 21802(a). This matter is on calendar for Defendants' motion to quash two deposition ...
2019.7.17 OSC Re Dismissal 293
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.7.17
Excerpt: ...0 00030044005100470003[David only intended to settle the action with named defendants and intended to pursue the case against his sister and co-plaintiff, Priscilla. David contends there is “good cause” not to dismiss the case based on his attorney's declaration of fault, which states in part “[u]nfortunately, through my error, I prepared or caused to be prepared and submitted an ‘Unconditional Notice of Settlement of Entire Case” form ...
2019.7.17 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 141
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.7.17
Excerpt: ...ies' relationship existed solely through Piner, a California Corporation, and therefore, the “partnership” statutes are irrelevant. Additionally, Parikh contends that under Corporations Code section 16202, a partnership cannot exist when a corporation is formed. Further, Parikh's demurrer to the fourth cause of action for “Judicial Expulsion of Parikh and Doe Defendants as Members of Piner's Board of Directors” under Corporations Code sec...
2019.6.26 Petition for Relief from Provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 381
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.6.26
Excerpt: ...esult of Plaintiff's “mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect” and SMART “was not and is not prejudiced by this failure.” SMART opposes the Petition and points out that in the Court's May 22, 2019 Order Sustaining SMART'S Demurrer, Without Leave to Amend, the Court entered judgment for SMART and dismissed the entire action as to SMART, with prejudice. Thus, SMART contends that the Petition is moot. Thereafter, SMART addresse...
2019.6.26 Demurrer 357
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.6.26
Excerpt: ...security (CCP 391.1 and 391 .3(a)); in the amount of $25,000 for each unresolved lawsuit before any further action in those cases can go forward.” Based on part on that Ruling, the hearing on Defendants' demurrer in this action is CONTINUED to June 26, 2019 at 3:00 P.M. in Department 19. If Plaintiff has not posted the required bond by that date, the case will be dismissed. (See, Singh v. Lipworth (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 40, 44 [“A vexatious l...
2019.6.19 Motion to Vacate Notice of Entry of Judgment 707
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.6.19
Excerpt: ...t that Defendant's motion references an “Exhibit 1” but no exhibits were attached. Finally, the Court stated that all statutory deadlines for an opposition and reply will be applicable. Defendant served the motion by personal service on May 20, 2019 but has not filed any additional documents and has not filed a copy of the referenced Exhibit 1. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 6, 2019. In her motion, Defendant requests that the Court vac...
2019.6.19 Motion to Deem Admitted All Facts 371
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.6.19
Excerpt: ...property on August 25, 2016; a Notice of <00140019001e0003004400 00550052005300480055[ty was sold at a trustee's sale on February 24, 2017. <004f0044005a0049005800 00480055000300440046[tion against Plaintiff on March 16, 2017 and that case was resolved in a stipulated judgment and Plaintiff vacated the property. Plaintiff filed the underlying action against Oxbow and Defendants on March 24, 2017 but Oxbow has since been dismissed. The First Amend...
2019.6.19 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 062
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.6.19
Excerpt: ...��reply to opposition to supplemental declaration…” On the same day, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the reply, correctly pointing out that the Court did not grant Defendant leave to file any further briefs. In fact, the Court notes that it was Defendant's late <0057004c00510058004800 00030049004c00550056[t place. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objection to the supplemental reply is SUSTAINED. Nonetheless, the Court will consider the merits of Defe...
2019.6.5 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 202
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.6.5
Excerpt: ...because the FACC is uncertain, vague and ambiguous. Additionally, Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant's prayer for punitive damages and attorneys' fees and contends that the FACC fails to state sufficient facts to justify these damages. Plaintiff also moves to strike various allegations in the FACC based largely on evidentiary objections. Plaintiff's demurrer to Defendant's First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) is SUSTAINED, in part, with le...
2019.6.5 Demurrer 843
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.6.5
Excerpt: ...of Civil Procedure section 430.10 and on the grounds the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute the respective causes of action. Specifically, Defendants contend that the disputed causes of action are “duplicative and superfluous” and the demurrer is necessary “in order to avoid having to conduct discovery on duplicative and superfluous cause of action.” Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer and contend that the complaint allege...
2019.5.22 Motion for Leave to File Answer to Remove Allegations 455
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.22
Excerpt: ...h VI.J. of the BTA/Quail contract failed to express that Douglas Thornley was a party to that paragraph. Douglas Thornley would not have signed the contract had he known that he was not a party to the contract or to paragraph VI.J. of the BTA/Quail contract.” (See, Defendants' Motion at Ex. A; Defendants' RJN at Ex. 1.) Defendants bring this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 472, 473(a), and 576 and on the grounds that the all...
2019.5.22 Demurrer 414
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.22
Excerpt: ...ient to constitute a cause of action. Specifically, Defendant contends that the FAC fails to allege the specific facts necessary to state a statutory cause <0003005600480046005700 0013000f0003[et seq. and fails to establish “gross negligence, neglect or reckless conduct” required by the Act. Additionally, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff's prayer for punitive <0003000b00290024002600 0017000c000300520051[ the grounds that the FAC does not a...
2019.5.22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 381
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.22
Excerpt: ...related to an alleged dangerous condition on public property. Defendant brings the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438(c)(1)(B)(ii) and contends that the FAC fails to show that (1) Plaintiff filed this litigation within the required six months from the date of <0051005700030052005a00 005100570044004c0051[ed, and controlled the bridge where the incident occurred. Thus, Defendant avers that Plaintiff's FAC fails to state facts su...
2019.5.15 Demurrer 381
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.15
Excerpt: ...and in particular, the Court addressed the issue of Plaintiff's untimely government claim and untimely request to file a late claim. Although the Court expressed doubts about Plaintiff's ability to cure the defects based on the facts already alleged, the Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed his FAC. Defendant brings this demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) and on the grounds that...
2019.5.8 Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 547
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.8
Excerpt: ...as been suffering from an extremely critical and nearly fatal medical condition that left him incapacitated, unable to manage his affairs, and virtually unaware of the events affecting him. (Motion at 1:23-26, 3:4-8; see also, Sheridan Dec. at ¶¶4-5.) Defendants contend that Mrs. Sheridan, the other trustee for the Trust, has never had any responsibility for the property owned by the Trust, never participated in managing the property, and assum...
2019.5.8 Demurrer 561
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.8
Excerpt: ...570044004c0051[. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's entire case is based on the existence of an attorney- client contingency agreement between Plaintiff and third-party Anthony Michalek. Defendant avers that “Plaintiff cannot allege an enforceable Attorney-Client Contingency Fee Agreement because there is not enforceable Attorney-Client Contingency Fee Agreement” and therefore, “Plaintiff has no right to recover any portion of Anthony Mich...
2019.5.8 Motion for Separate Trial 455
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.8
Excerpt: ...ff's action and therefore, a separate trial on this affirmative defense will eliminate the necessity and save the time and expense of a regular trial on the action. Plaintiff opposes the motion and contends that even if the contractual limitation of liability provision is found to apply to the parties here, it will not resolve all of the issues in this case and will not eliminate the need for a trial. Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice in Su...
2019.5.8 Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Labor Commissioner's Order 973
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.8
Excerpt: ...r Code 98.2. Defendant filed an opposition on April 30, 2019, the day before the original hearing on May 1, 2019. However, the Court did not receive that opposition prior to posting its tentative ruling on April 30, 2019 and the tentative ruling was to grant Plaintiff's motion to dismiss. Defendant appeared at the May 1, 2019 hearing, without giving notice to Plaintiff, and the Court continued the hearing until today, May 8, 2019. Defendant's opp...
2019.5.1 OSC Re Dismissal of Complaint and Action 293
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.1
Excerpt: ...9, “the case was resolved against [the named] Defendants on the basis of a determination that [Defendants] were only 20 percent at fault for the collision, while Priscilla Parks was 80 percent at fault.” (See, Motion at 4:11- 13.) However, David also alleges that the Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case filed on January 23, 2019 was filed in error and in fact, “[i]t was not the intention of Plaintiff David Parks, nor the intention of his...
2019.5.1 Motion to Compel Neurological and Mental Exam 368
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.1
Excerpt: ...rological examination and mental exam by Mark Strassberg, M.D., a neurologist; and (2) neuropsychological testing to be performed by Ronald Roberts, Ph.D., a neuropsychologist.” (See, Motion at 2:8-12.) Defendant contends that based on Plaintiff's allegations of traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome, Defendant “is entitled to a mental and physical examination to be performed by its own neurologist, Dr. Strassberg, with <00030027...
2019.5.1 Motion to Compel Further Responses 220
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.1
Excerpt: ...dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of the putative class member contact information in advance of class certification.” (See, Opp. at 1:19-20.) Instead, Defendant contests Plaintiff's proposed Belaire-West disclosure, which includes contact information for both Plaintiff's and Defendant's respective attorneys. Defendant argues that including Plaintiff's attorney information in theBelaire-West disclosure would create a “one-way”...
2019.5.1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 132
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.5.1
Excerpt: ...its statutory and contractual obligations when it failed to negotiate a “new settlement closing date” with Plaintiff after the short-sale buyer was unable to close escrow by the initial date set. Based on this alleged breach, Plaintiff contends he is likely to proceed on the merits of his claims for a violation of Civil Code section 2924.11. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that he <0003004c0051004d005800 00560003005100520057[ issued and that...
2019.4.10 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, Enter Judgment 948
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2019.4.10
Excerpt: ...rmation of the arbitration award and entry of judgment are necessary for Petitioners to enforce the award. Additionally, Petitioners seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to those included in the arbitration award, for $10,165.00, which includes $8,265.00 in fees and costs incurred to bring this motion and $1,900.00 in fees anticipated to be incurred to prepare a reply and appear at any hearing. Petitioners contend they are enti...

105 Results

Per page

Pages