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
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 ...
2018.8.2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction 482
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.2
Excerpt: ...nth. Pursuant to the TRO plaintiffs have been paying that monthly sum, but they are not residing at the property because it required post-fire repairs to make it habitable. Plaintiffs assert – at least in their moving papers – that the home is now habitable and seek a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring Wallahan to let them move back in pending resolution of their claims at trial. As cited in Davenport v. Blue Cross of California (1997...
2018.8.1 Petition to Confirm Arbitration 086
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...r (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1106.) However, the response was untimely served and filed, therefore, the court has not considered it. “In order to comply with the purpose of expeditious resolution of disputes through arbitration, time limits in which to challenge arbitration awards must be strictly enforced.” (Knass v. Blue Cross of California (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 390, 395.) Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6, the response must be ser...
2018.8.1 Motion to Vacate Judgment 813
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ......
2018.8.1 Motion to Vacate Dismissal 323
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...13. (Burnstad Decl., ¶5, Exh. 5.) The court's order specifically retained jurisdiction over the parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement. Defendant defaulted on monthly payments required under the settlement agreement. (Burnstad Decl., ¶7.) The settlement agreement provides that upon default, the unpaid balance, less any amount paid prior to default shall be accelerated and become due and payable. (Burnstad ...
2018.8.1 Motion to Consolidate 337
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...led in the two cases is granted. On the merits, the court is inclined to grant the motion. Consolidation appears proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048 as the actions involve common questions of law and fact. Additionally, the motion is timely made, consolidation would not make the case too complex for the jury and it would not prejudice the parties. However, the motion is procedurally defective because it fails to substantially comply...
2018.8.1 Motion to Compel Further Responses 342
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...Defendant contends it was not obligated to reimburse Plaintiff because California regulations provide an exception to the reimbursement rule if the employee's wages are at least two times the minimum wage. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1-9. The court finds Plaintiff's motion is well-taken as CRC's responses are not code- compliant. Specifically, as argued by Plaintiff, CRC has failed ...
2018.8.1 Motion for Attorney Fees 193
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.8.1
Excerpt: ...ounty now moves for attorney fees pursuant to Government Code section 25845(c) and Sonoma County Code section 1-7(b). The County contends it is the prevailing party and seeks a total of $38,964.50 in attorney fees. Those fees were incurred between December 2016 and April 2018. Defendant opposes the motion. He argues “the issue of prevailing party is not clear, and can be equally claimed by defendant.” (Opposition, 2:10-11.) Defendant further ...
2018.7.27 Petition to Compel Arbitration 411
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...on with Plaintiff until May 25, 2018. Moreover, in its CMC statement filed Feb. 9, 2018, Defendant made no mention of arbitration; Defendant checked the boxes stating that it would be willing to take part in mediation, but did not check the box stating that it intended to take part in binding private arbitration, which it now demands. It also stated that it was conducting discovery “per code.” This specifically included written discovery, Pla...
2018.7.27 Demurrer 081
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...e a cause of action. The demurrer for uncertainty is overruled. Request for judicial notice granted. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. ...
2018.7.27 Demurrer 675
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ... were, who made the misrepresentations or concealed information, when and who, and how Plaintiff relied on them. He pleads these elements with specificity for the intentional fraud claims. Moreover, negligent misrepresentation is a form of negligence and not subject to the strict particularity pleading requirement. The court also notes that Plaintiff does not expressly identify such a cause of action. The prevailing party is to prepare an order c...
2018.7.27 Motion to Compel Release of Mental Records 969
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.27
Excerpt: ...ood cause, the motion is couched improperly and based in part on inapplicable authority. Defendants also brought the motion after first, improperly, serving Plaintiff with a demand for the second exam for obtaining leave to do so. Moreover, Defendants themselves demonstrate that they already knew about the full range and nature of Plaintiff's injuries and treatment, including the neurological component, due to Plaintiff's allegations in the compl...
2018.7.25 Motion to Compel Further Responses 342
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...ly for the cost of his hand tools. Defendant contends it was not obligated to reimburse Plaintiff because California regulations provide an exception to the reimbursement rule if the employee's wages are at least two times the minimum wage. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories in order to obtain: the identities and contact information of other technicians/mechanics of Defendant who earned less than $21 per hour; ...
2018.7.25 Motion to Continue Trial, for Summary Judgment, to Appoint Successor 133
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...correspond to the new trial date. The matter is set for a Case Management/Trial Setting Conference on August 30, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 17 of this court. Defendants' counsel shall draft an order consistent with the court's ruling. Motion for Summary Judgment: The parties are ordered to appear to discuss continuance of the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Motion for Order to Appoint Decedent's Successor in Interest to Continue A...
2018.7.25 Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 149
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...kenly believed that she did not need to respond to the Complaint until the date stated on the summons for <00560058004f0057000300 00b30050004c00560057[ake,” Defendant did not file a responsive pleading and a default was entered against her. Plaintiff opposes the motion on procedural and substantive grounds. First, Plaintiff argues that the motion is procedurally defective because Defendant failed to attach a copy of the proposed responsive plea...
2018.7.25 Motion to Amend Judgment 248
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.25
Excerpt: ...e Trustee. The Defendant and Judgment Debtor, Louie I. Mughannam (the Defendant) has filed an opposition, arguing that he was never served with the complaint. Further, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate (under the cited authority) that the Trustee should be added as an additional judgment debtor. Further, the Defendant contends that the Trust assets are not subject to execution, and that the Plaintiffs were aware ...
2018.7.6 Demurrer 850
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...he document relied on by Fay to demonstrate that the subject loan was not assumable only states that the loan is not assumable upon sale. The Plaintiff argues that because she assumed the loan on the death of her parents that provision is not applicable. The Plaintiff argues that snice she provided Fay with the necessary documentation regarding the death of her parents, it was obligated to allow her to apply to assume the loan. The Plaintiff cont...
2018.7.6 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 202
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...pleaded with the requisite particularity, Plaintiff shall bring a properly noticed motion for leave to amend.” (See, Court's May 8, 2018 Order Sustaining Defendant's Demurrer.) Plaintiff brings this motion in response to the Court's ruling and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to (1) add new legal claims to clarify a previously existing cause of action; (2) add ...
2018.7.6 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 670
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...otion was filed. Therefore, Defendants could have addressed the merits of the proposed amendments in their opposition but chose not to do so. The court notes that this case was filed in December 2017 and trial is not yet set. Based on the reply and the fact this case is in the relatively early stages, the court is satisfied that the motion for leave to file the FAC should be granted rather than requiring Plaintiffs to re-file this motion merely t...
2018.7.6 Motion for Summary Judgment 686
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Broderick, Patrick M
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...sign of the intersection and warning signals; Defendant Tognozzi already knew of the intersection, stop light, and configuration so lack of warning was not a cause of the accident; and Tognozzi caused the accident by looking at his phone while driving. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the court, submitting it to the opposing party for review five days prior to submitting it to the court. ...
2018.7.6 Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena 926
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Chouteau, Rene Auguste
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...n that she was wrongfully terminated and suffered retaliation from Aurora for internal and external whistleblowing related in part to hospital staffing levels. She also alleges workplace health and safety violations under California's OSHA laws through the enforcement mechanism of the Private Attorneys General Act in the Labor Code. Defendants contend Plaintiff's job performance at Aurora was inadequate, she did not demonstrate adequate knowledge...
2018.7.6 Motion to Strike, Tax Costs 950
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...try of judgment was served on April 10, 2018. The court further notes that no notice of appeal has been field in this matter. Accordingly, since the only reason presented by the Plaintiff for strike or holding in abeyance, and no appeal having been made, the court will deny this request. The Plaintiff also seeks to tax certain costs, specifically, $60 filing fee associated with the Defendant's demurrer, $60 filing fees associated with a motion to...
2018.7.6 Motion to Transfer Venue 543
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...s that it is made in Sonoma County and was to be performed in Sonoma County while the Watters Declaration adds that Plaintiff performed the work in Sonoma County and Defendant paid Plaintiff in Sonoma County. Objections overruled. However, the objections and the evidence which they attack have no impact on the outcome of this motion. Request for sanctions is denied. The prevailing party is to prepare an order conforming with the order of the Cour...
2018.7.6 Motion to Transfer Venue 877
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Hardcastle, Allan D
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ...or personal property, in which case the action may be filed in either the county where the defendants reside or the county where the injury occurred. (Code Civ. Proc. §395(a).) Defendant argues that this case, which alleges a single cause of action for malicious prosecution, is not an action for injury to person or personal property and therefore must be transferred to Mendocino County, which is where Defendant “resided” at commencement of t...
2018.7.6 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 988
Location: Sonoma
Judge: Wick, Arthur A
Hearing Date: 2018.7.6
Excerpt: ... they had “actual knowledge” of the dangerous propensities of the dog. The Defendants argue that the undisputed evidence establishes that they had no actual knowledge and therefore cannot be found to have had duty to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff opposes, arguing that the Defendants have not met their burden. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are not providing all of the facts and therefore “have not met their burden of establishing a...

2604 Results

Per page

Pages