Answer to Complaint

Useful Rulings on Answer

Recent Rulings on Answer

ANNA RIZHAVSKAYA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Answer to complaint to be filed within 20 days. B. The Case Management Conference is continued to 2/4/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. T. New CMC statements are required per Local Rules. Meet and confer required prior to CMC per Local Rules. 1. INTRODUCTION Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“AHM”) demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Anna Rizhavskaya (“Plaintiff.”) At issue is the sixth cause of action (“COA”) for Fraud. 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ORNETHA BUTLER VS MANUEL D. TEJEDA TRUCKING INC

.: 20STCV07356 Hearing Date: September 15, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Background Plaintiff Ornetha Butler (“Plaintiff”) allegedly was involved in a motor vehicle collision with a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Manuel Tejeda Trucking (“Defendant”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

RAFAEL TORRES, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TECHNION CONTRACTORS TCI, INC., A CORPORATION

On 9/5/20, Technion filed its answer to complaint. On 11/14/19, Great Divide Insurance Co and its Third-Party Administrator Berkley Entertainment (collectively, “Intervenor”) filed a Complaint in Intervention. Intervenor asserts that its insured, Asbestos Instant Response, Inc. dba Air Demolition & Environmental Solutions ("AIR''), was Plaintiff’s employer when the subject incident occurred.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVELYNE KRIEG, ET AL. VS B.V. GENERAL, INC. , ET AL.

General, Inc. dba Leisure Vale Retirement Hotel’s Answer to Complaint is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant B.V. General, Inc. dba Leisure Vale Retirement Hotel’s Answer to Complaint is DENIED. GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT INC VS MEMOS SCAFFOLDING NORWALK

Regarding the electronic filing fees, Defendants state that the costs incurred were for the following: Court filing fee for Bernards’ Answer to Complaint: $49.95, Court filing fee Selma’s Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee Bernards’ Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee MSJ: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66. (Supp. Strong Decl. ¿ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

ADVANCED FROZEN TREAT TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL VS THE VOLLRATH C

Levine’s Answer to Complaint the Wisconsin Action. Q. The Scheduling Order in the Wisconsin Action. R. Decision and Order on Summary Judgment in the Wisconsin Action. S. Excerpts from the true and correct copy of the Transcript of the Video Deposition of Richard R. Koehl (Defendant in this action), dated June 21, 2018, in the Wisconsin Action. This document was attached as an exhibit to one of AFTT Parties’ motions in limine filed in the Wisconsin Action. T.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

: RILEY V. COLE

Defendant's Motion Withdraw First Amended Answer to Complaint and Motion for Leave to Amend Amended Answer is denied. The motion was not timely filed or served. CCP section 1005 requires the motion to be filed by August 6, 2020. It was not filed until August 20, 2020. The motion was required to be served by August 1, 2020. There is no proof of service. As the motion was not signed until August 19, 2020, it could not have been timely served.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

HIGH INTEGRITY RACK AND SHELVING, LLC VS TAOMORE SUPPLY CHAIN LTD

C/O: 11-30-20 TRIAL: 12-15-20 PROCEEDINGS: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP §435) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff High Integrity Rack & Shelving, LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer is DENIED. However, the Court sets an OSC Hearing re Legal Representation of Defendant for October 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NANCY RIVERA VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 19STCV42825 Hearing Date: August 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT’s ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Background Plaintiff Nancy Rivera (“Plaintiff”) allegedly slipped and fell at a store owned and operated by Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”).

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS BRITE LITE ENTERPRISES, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Case No. 19SMCV01403 Hearing Date 8/21/2020 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint Inter Shipping Line, Inc. sold goods or provided services (the complaint does not specify which) to defendant, which allegedly failed to pay. Inter Shipping assigned its debt to plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau. Plaintiff now moves to strike defendant Brite Lite Enterprises’ answer on the grounds that Brite Lite’s corporate status has been suspended.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

HANCOCK VS. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT AUTO

HEARING ON MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant’s motion to amend its answer is granted. Such motions are liberally allowed and plaintiff has demonstrated no prejudice in granting leave to amend in this recently filed case. The amended answer is ordered to be filed within 10 of this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

CADLES OF WEST VA VS. ROUSSET

Request for Judicial Notice Plaintiff requests judicial notice of its Complaint for Breach of Contract (and exhibits thereto) as well as Defendant’s Answer to Complaint for Breach of contract filed on June 13, 2019 (and exhibits thereto). The Court need not take judicial notice of pleadings in its own file. The Request is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT INC VS MEMOS SCAFFOLDING NORWALK

Regarding, the electronic filing fees, Defendants state that the costs incurred were for the following: Court filing fee Bernards’ Answer to Complaint: $49.95, Court filing fee Selma’s Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee Bernards’ Answer to Complaint in Intervention: $49.95, Court filing fee MSJ: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66, Court filing fee Reply: $11.66. (Opp. Strong Decl. ¿ 15.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

Request For Judicial Notice Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (1) Answer to Complaint; (2) Grant Deed recorded February 18, 2014; (3) Application for Guardian Ad Litem filed by Iva Dominguez on March 4, 2019 in this action; (4) Death Certificate of Mario Campana. Request Nos. 1 and 3 are GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records). Request No. 2 is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of recorded documents. (Alfaro v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

RAFAEL TORRES, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TECHNION CONTRACTORS TCI, INC., A CORPORATION

On 9/5/20, Technion filed its answer to complaint. On 11/14/19, Great Divide Insurance Co and its Third-Party Administrator Berkley Entertainment (collectively, “Intervenor”) filed a Complaint in Intervention. Intervenor asserts that its insured, Asbestos Instant Response, Inc. dba Air Demolition & Environmental Solutions ("AIR''), was Plaintiff’s employer when the subject incident occurred.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ZHENG V GOALAND ENERGY CONSERVATION TECH USA LIMITED

Cross-defendant’s answer to complaint due 20 days from the date of hearing. Cross-Complainant to give Notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2020

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. VS TEMPLE GARDEN HOMES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;, ET AL.

The Court notes that the file includes an “Amended Answer to Complaint” filed by defendants on September 23, 2020, which appears to be the operative answer. Defendants have not filed with the motion a complete copy of the proposed pleading. Defendants are ordered to efile with the Court a signed complete version of the pleading, which is to be designated the “Second Amended Answer,” and to serve the Second Amended Answer by close of business this date. The Court orders counsel for defendants, Mariano A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The Court notes that the file includes an “Amended Answer to Complaint” filed by defendants on September 23, 2020, which appears to be the operative answer. Defendants have not filed with the motion a complete copy of the proposed pleading. Defendants are ordered to efile with the Court a signed complete version of the pleading, which is to be designated the “Second Amended Answer,” and to serve the Second Amended Answer by close of business this date. The Court orders counsel for defendants, Mariano A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

KEVIN W JAK VS RED BARN HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND FILE SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT BY JOHN LABRANO, OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Grant. The motion is unopposed. Moving party granted 10 days leave to file with the Court a Second Amended Answer, a proposed copy of which was attached to the motion as Exhibit B....

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL VS BRUCE FISHMAN, M.D.

Here, Defendants answered the first amended complaint on July 11, 2018 – their answer was captioned “Answer To Complaint,” but the text of the answer says that it is the answer to the “First Amended Complaint as amended pursuant to the Order of the Courts [sic] served on the parties on June 21, 2018. The order served on June 21, 2018 that is referenced in Defendants’ answer was the Court’s order sustaining the Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY VS APRIL MANCINI, ET AL.

Plaintiff CITY OF SOUTH GATE’s Demurrer to Defendant ALBERT ADHOOT’s Answer to Complaint is OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. CCP §472 IV. Plaintiff CITY OF SOUTH GATE’s Motion to Strike Defendant ALBERT ADHOOT’s Answer to Complaint is OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. CCP §472. Moving Party to give Notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARTIN GASCA VS LUX EVERGREEN

For administrative purposes, defendant Lux Evergreen Inc. will need to file a clean copy of its proposed Answer to Complaint with the Court's Civil Business Office. Defendant Lux Evergreen Inc. shall have 10 days to do so. Background This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Martin Gasca (Plaintiff) alleges that he purchased a used 2013 Ford Escape (the Vehicle) from defendant The Kar Place (which is a fictitious business name for Lux Evergreen Inc.) (the Dealership) on or around November 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ESKANDARI STONE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS RAYMOND J. PAGES

Pages’ First Amended Answer to Complaint is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Defendant, nevertheless, asks the Court to grant him leave to amend to assert an affirmative defense that the “joint venture” exception to usury laws applies in this case.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JENNIFER BLACKMON VS‘ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (UNVERIFIED) [PLTF] JENNIFER BLACKMON RULlNG Per stipulation and order by the parties, matter is off calendar. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 1.1 00?) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear telephonically through the court’s vCourt System.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P, FRECCERO

  • County

    Marin County, CA

EVAN CROSS VS. IAN L. WAYNE. ET AL

(First Amended Answer to Complaint, p, 4:22.) PV Tiburon argues that Guaranty Defendants’ Affirmative Defense asserting a statute of limitations bar based on New York Real Property And Procedure Law (“RPAPL”) section 1371 is inapplicable to this action and must be stricken from their answer, PV Tiburon contends that RPAPL section 1371 only applies to judicial foreclosures in New York and not to those out-of -state.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.