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

95 Results

Location: Yolo x
2020.09.18 Motion for Summary Judgment 411
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.09.18
Excerpt: ...any's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Code Civ. Pro., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Defendant has failed to show that the pending dispute is “not one that is appropriate for declaratory relief.” (Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1402.) Specifically, the undisputed evidence shows “both continuing contractual relationships and future consequences for the conduct of the relationship that depended on the court's...
2020.09.17 Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus 765
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.09.17
Excerpt: ...gence in prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.130.) The competing considerations to be evaluated in a motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution are the policies of discouraging stale claims and compelling reasonable diligence balanced against the strong public policy which seeks to dispose of litigation on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. (Van Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 122, 131.) In considering a ...
2020.09.17 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 988
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.09.17
Excerpt: ...r's evidentiary objections made within her separate statement in support of her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment because “[a]ll written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers…in opposition to the motion.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) Defendant Mary Helen Leet's motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication is DENIED, without prejudice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c...
2020.09.16 Demurrers 729
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.09.16
Excerpt: ...bor Code section 1102.5. (Manavian v. Department of Justice (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1141; Complaint, ¶¶ 14, 30, 32, 35, 46, 49.) Defendant's general and special demurrers to the second and third causes of action in plaintiff's complaint are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f).) The alleged violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBRA”) occurred after plaintiff's e...
2020.09.09 Motion to Compel Further Responses, to Seal Docs 411
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.09.09
Excerpt: ...requests for production nos. 1‐3, 5‐20, 24‐37, and 40‐79. (Ibid.) The Court also orders plaintiff to provide a privilege log as required by its responses to defendant's request for production, set one. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c).) Plaintiff shall include all redacted documents in its privilege log. (Ibid.) Finally, the 2 of 2 Court orders plaintiff to produce responsive documents to request for production nos. 5, 6, 8, and 9...
2020.09.08 Motion to Compel Completion of Deposition of PMQ 517
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.09.08
Excerpt: ...on shall be scheduled and completed by no later than October 8, 2020. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion is denied. The motion does not “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production” of the requested documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Further, plaintiff failed to submit a separate statement with the motion, regarding his request to compel answers at a deposition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule...
2020.09.02 Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, for Monetary Sanctions, to Compel 820
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.09.02
Excerpt: ...Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260 subd. (a). 1010.6 subd. (4)(B).) The motion was filed prior to the date that the responses were due. Sutter health Sacramento Sierra Region's request for sanctions is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023,010, subd. (h), 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no substantial justification for plaintiff's filing this motion prior to the date the responses were due. Plaintiff shall pay defendant Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region...
2020.09.01 Motions to Compel Further Responses 126
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.09.01
Excerpt: ...efendant WUSD has provided adequate responses and proper objections to these discovery requests. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, from defendant WUSD is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) While defendant WUSD's vague and overbroad objections are proper, a responding party must answer an interrogatory to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) Accordingly, def...
2020.09.01 Demurrer 686
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.09.01
Excerpt: ...tiz's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiffs' complaint was timely filed under the Government Tort Claims Act, given the applicability of Emergency Rule 9. (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1); Emergency Rule 9.) Further, plaintiffs have alleged statutory authority establishing liability for the City of Woodl...
2020.08.26 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 620
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.08.26
Excerpt: ...4th 189, 198–199; Complaint, ¶¶ 4‐7, 46‐49.) Defendant General Motors LLC's demurrer as to the third cause of action for fraudulent inducement‐concealment is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff has pled his fraud cause of action with sufficient particularity, given that he is asserting defendant's nondisclosure of information. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn.,...
2020.08.19 Motion for Summary Judgment 707
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.08.19
Excerpt: ...n to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) However, the Court does not consider defendants' UMF 12 in ruling on the instant motion. (Reeves v. Safeway (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 105‐106.) Defendants Walgreen Co. and Irma Moreno's evidentiary objection no. 3 is OVERRULED. The Court does not reach defendants' other evidentiary objections as the evidence objected to is not germane to the disposition ...
2020.08.14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 756
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.08.14
Excerpt: ... 438.) Plaintiff's third cause of action for fraudulent inducementconcealment is barred by the economic loss rule because plaintiff has failed to plead facts “demonstrat[ing] harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” (Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1130; Complaint, ¶¶ 159‐ 179.) Absent allegations of affirmative misrepresentations, plaintiff's third cause of action does not s...
2020.08.14 Motion for Summary Judgment 202
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.08.14
Excerpt: ...(p)(1).) Triable issues of material fact exist as to the amount of money that defendant owes plaintiff and whether the amounts on plaintiff's statement of account were sent to defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 337a; Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 25; UMF 2‐4.) The Court does not consider the additional evidence attached to plaintiff's reply because it was not authenticated and plaintiff failed submit this evidence with its moving pa...
2020.08.12 Motion for Summary Judgment 712
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.08.12
Excerpt: ...of the sixty‐day notice to quit (Exh. 1) is DENIED. (Evid. Code, § 452.) Plaintiff's objection to defendant's request for judicial notice of the sixty‐day notice to quit (Exh. 1) is SUSTAINED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 1200.) Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Defendant Krista Mitchell's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Defendant fails to establish...
2020.08.07 Motion for Summary Judgment 323
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.08.07
Excerpt: ...tant motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).) Defendant Joanna Malson's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his hostile work environment harassment cause of action against defendant Malson prior to initiating the instant action. (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (c); Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th ...
2020.08.06 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 693
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.08.06
Excerpt: ...DENIED. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The summary judgment procedure, inasmuch as it denies the right of the adverse party to a trial, is drastic and should be used with caution. (Hyunh v. Ingersoll‐Rand (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 825, 830.) Moreover, any doubts about the propriety of summary adjudication must be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, ...
2020.08.04 Motion for Protective Order 232
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.08.04
Excerpt: ... discovery above the 35 statutory amount is necessary in this action. On July 16, 2020, defendant served unverified responses to form interrogatories, set one. As defendant prepared answers to the form interrogatories the motion for protective order is MOOT. Defendant shall serve plaintiff with the verification for the form interrogatories on plaintiff by August 11, 2020. Defendant served some responses to the request for special interrogatories,...
2020.07.31 Motion for Summary Judgment 640
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.07.31
Excerpt: ...one year statute of limitations began to run by October 19, 2016 when plaintiff Ms. Boulett discovered her injury and suspected the injury was caused by wrongdoing. (Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 102; Drexler v. Petersen (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1190; Sutter Defendants UMFs 11‐19 .) Even with a 90 day extension, there is no material issue of disputed fact that the statute of limitations to bring plaintiff's action expi...
2020.07.29 Demurrer 715
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.07.29
Excerpt: ...ct of reasonable dispute by the parties and not a proper subject for judicial notice. (Ibid.) Defendants' demurrers to plaintiff's first amended complaint are SUSTAINED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) Defendants Bentec HoldCo, Hermitage, Brinkley, and Greyrock demurrer as to plaintiffs' first cause of action (breach of contract) and second cause of action (breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) are SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE ...
2020.07.22 Motion to Strike 347
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.07.22
Excerpt: ....) (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6‐7.) The first amended complaint does not include specific facts or allegations to support a claim for punitive damages against defendant as required. Additionally, an award of attorney's fees must be supported by either statutory authority or a contractual agreement. Plaintiff's causes of action against defendant are for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. As this action against defendant is not based on a con...
2020.07.21 Demurrer 115
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.07.21
Excerpt: ... 2 of 3 Plaintiff's first cause of action: Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's first cause of action for enticement of minors is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).) Plaintiff's first cause of action, is not fatally ambiguous or uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) Plaintiff has pleaded that defendants provided smart phone, service plan, and gaming computer as “enticements” under the statute, over and above...
2020.07.15 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 387
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.07.15
Excerpt: ....) Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in furtherance of justice. (Code Civ.Proc., § 473.) That trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state since 1901. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488–489.) The fa...
2020.07.09 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 854
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.07.09
Excerpt: ...terial facts show that plaintiff cannot establish that defendant breached the contract/settlement agreement as a matter of law. (UMF 1‐130.) Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. “[a]bsent those limited cases where a breach of a consensual contract term is not claimed or alleged, the only justification for asserting a separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant ...
2020.07.02 Motion to Add Judgment Debtor, for Attorney's Fees 429
Location: Yolo
Judge: Department 9
Hearing Date: 2020.07.02
Excerpt: ...rally prevents creditor from taking actions against property of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor and the debtor's property. The blanket injunction continues until a bankruptcy court order lifting the stay has been entered or the stay has been expired. (11 U.S.C. § 362; In re Mellor (9th Cir. 1984) 734 F.3d 1396, 1398.) Unless an exception to the stay applies, ‘[o]nce triggered by a debtor's bankruptcy petition, the automatic stay suspends any...
2020.06.04 Motion for Leave to File Complaint 854
Location: Yolo
Judge: McAdam, Samuel T 10
Hearing Date: 2020.06.04
Excerpt: ... amendment is necessary and proper, and why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b); Dec. of Thomas, ¶¶ 1‐3.) Additionally, the proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action. (California Cas. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280‐281 (disapproved on other grounds by Kransco v. Am Empire Surplus Lines, Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390; Dec. of Thomas, Exh. 1; Settlement Agr...

95 Results

Per page

Pages