What is a Motion for Joinder / to Join?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Joinder / to Join

Recent Rulings on Motion for Joinder / to Join

GIZIENSKI VS HARTWELL

Proc. 389(b). In fact, it appears that the new owner would be subject to this Court's jurisdiction. The Motion is denied on this basis. The apparent request for an award of monetary sanctions is denied for three reasons: (a) the notice of Motion does not seek this relief; (b) Defendants do not cite authority supporting an award of sanctions; and (c) Defendants did not prevail. Plaintiffs counter request for an award of monetary sanctions is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IRA LEE KIMBLE VS. WDW JOINT VENTURE

Nominal Defendants are ordered to file a properly noticed motion to join the action as Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT VS. WATTS

Proc., § 389.) On this point, the Court notes petitioner’s allegation that it was a violation of due process for respondents to decide in favor of 1827’s competing claim without notifying petitioner. If so, why would it not also be a violation of due process to decide this action in petitioner’s favor without notice to 1827? 2. Traditional Mandamus v. Administrative Mandamus.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

GHILAMARIAM VS. G&M OIL CO., LLC

Chevron’s motion to join in G&M Oil’s motion for terminating sanctions is denied. Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d). So, too, is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. Id., subd. (g); Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1495, 1516. The moving party need only show the failure to obey the court’s earlier discovery orders.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

CASILIO VS. VALENTINE

The court finds that ZLAJ does qualify as an indispensable party to this action pursuant to under CCP § 389 under the unique facts of this case. Third Cause of Action In the Third Cause of Action plaintiffs attempt to state a cause of action for fraud and conspiracy to defraud.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

ALEX KYRKLUND VS JOY ROSE ANDERSON, ET AL.

Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) Therefore, Tauscher’s suggestion that her motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted based on the failure to join an indispensable party is rejected. First Cause of Action for Fraud Second Cause of Action for Intentional Deceit Third Cause of Action for Concealment Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Deceit Consistent with Tauscher’s motion, the court address the first four fraud-related causes of action together.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

CORTES V. GOODWIN

Also, defendant has not provided a proof of service showing that he has served the minors or their parent or legal guardian with notice of the motion for joinder. Nor have the minors filed opposition to the motion. Therefore, even if defendant had presented evidence and authorities that demonstrated good cause for granting the motion for joinder, the court would not be able to grant relief due to the lack of service on the minors. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

PLAT FORM INC. V. IRVINE BREWERY INC.

Based on the volume of material that the parties have submitted, the court intends to CONTINUE the Motion for Summary Judgment, and, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues (filed on 12-20-19 under ROA No. 767) and the Motion for Joinder in Other Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and, in the Alternative, for Adjudication of Issues (filed on 5-26-20 under ROA No. 829). The court will discuss a continuance date with the parties at the hearing on 9-8-20.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

WRIGHT VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC

Proc. § 389(a).) The Case Management Conference currently set for 10-1-20 is continued to 11-30-20 at 8:30 a.m., Department 5. The court has the court has discretion to consider an untimely-served opposition. (See CRC 3.1300(d); Slayton v. Superior Court 146 Cal.App.4th 55, 58, n. 2; Kapitanski v. Von’s Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29.) More importantly, in filing a substantive reply, Defendants waived any defect or irregularity in service. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

TAMARA L. JOHNSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Code of Civil Procedure section 389 provides in part: (a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RUANE VS. CHORBAJIAN

Ruane as Co- Trustee of the Trust Defendant is a necessary party defendant under Code of Civil Procedure § 389. The demurrer was predicated solely on the fact that Karen Ruane was a Co-Trustee of the Trust, and that Probate Code § 15620 requires unanimous action by all trustees of the Trust. (See Probate Code § 15620 ["Unless otherwise provided in the trust instrument, a power vested in two or more trustees may only be exercised by their unanimous action."].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

POLYN SPIRTOS VS BOGARDUS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Proc. § 389(a); Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808-09.) A person is an indispensable party when the judgment to be rendered necessarily must affect his rights. (Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 438, 460-64.) Demurrers are rarely sustained on this ground since defects/misjoinders often do not appear on the face of the complaint or judicially noticed matters. (See Harboring Villas Homeowners Association v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GUO ZHOU VS GLOBAL CONNECTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(CCP § 389, subd. (a).) The Court disagrees with Defendants that Chelsea Wright is an indispensable party to this case because there is no cause of action for negligence that Plaintiff can pursue against Ms. Wright based on the facts alleged. Plaintiff’s claim rests in Defendants’ negligence is verifying Plaintiff’s signature. At no point does Plaintiff allege that Ms. Wright caused Defendants to be negligent. Demurrer on this basis is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GUO ZHOU VS GLOBAL CONNECTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(CCP § 389, subd. (a).) The Court disagrees with Defendants that Chelsea Wright is an indispensable party to this case because there is no cause of action for negligence that Plaintiff can pursue against Ms. Wright based on the facts alleged. Plaintiff’s claim rests in Defendants’ negligence is verifying Plaintiff’s signature. At no point does Plaintiff allege that Ms. Wright caused Defendants to be negligent. Demurrer on this basis is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DALE HARMS VS. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (Joinder) FILED BY THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s opposed motion to join NGC Fund I, LLC’s motion to declare Dale Harms a vexatious litigant is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

DALE HARMS VS. THE BANK OF NEW YORK

HEARING ON MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT FILED BY ANCHOR LOANS LP * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Anchor Loans, LP’s unopposed motion for joinder with NGC Fund I, LLC’s motion to declare Plaintiff Dale Harms a vexatious litigant is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MIRALYN GANAPIN CONDE VS GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Compulsory Intervention Under CCP § 387(d)(1)(B) Intervention under CCP § 387(d)(1)(B) is a counterpart to the compulsory joinder rule of CCP § 389. (Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Develop., Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 540, 556.) It gives the nonparty the right to intervene in cases where his or her joinder has not yet been ordered, but could be ordered, under the CCP § 389 rules. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

VIKESHINI NAIDU ET AL VS DAVITA INC ET AL

Compulsory Intervention Under CCP § 387(d)(1)(B) Intervention under CCP § 387(d)(1)(B) is a counterpart to the compulsory joinder rule of CCP § 389. (Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Develop., Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 540, 556.) It gives the nonparty the right to intervene in cases where his or her joinder has not yet been ordered, but could be ordered, under the CCP § 389 rules. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RUANE VS. CHORBAJIAN

In its demurrer, the Trust Defendant argues that Karen Ruane in her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Trust Defendant is a necessary party under Code of Civil Procedure § 389 because the Trust Defendant is required to act through both of its trustees and that the Trust Defendant could not defend the action without the other co-trustee being a party defendant.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

RICHARD ENGLISH VS DENIS KENT REDIGER, ET AL.

Proc. § 389(a); Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808-09.) A person is an indispensable party when the judgment to be rendered necessarily must affect his rights. (Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 438, 460-64.) Demurrers are rarely sustained on this ground since defects/misjoinders often do not appear on the face of the complaint or judicially noticed matters. (See Harboring Villas Homeowners Association v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

CV COMMUNITIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS ANTELOPE VALLEY-EAST KERN WATER AGENCY, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ENTITY , ET AL.

The demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED in part; Plaintiffs are ordered to join the City of Palmdale as a defendant to the Third Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief, under Code of Civil Procedure § 389. The demurrer is OVERRULED as to SGPWA.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KEITH GARL V. ROBERT NICHOLSON, BEN FERRARI, ET AL.

Defendants’ motion for joinder is granted. Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement is granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

THOMAS VAN ZANDT VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A,, ET AL

A WILL BE CONDUCTED VIA ZOOM, THE ZOOM INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BELOW Join Zoom Meeting httDs://zoomius/i/94732715l457Dwd:UOVqRV1ZSVNOcmlGSG1VOFJI-IOzISOTO9 Meeting ID: 947 3271 5145 Passcode: 425548 By phone: (669) 900 6833 Meeting ID: 947 3271 5145 Passcode: 425548 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Amend the Complaint to Join Fictitiously Named Plaintiff is DENIED, Discussion Plaintiffs bring this motion pursuant to the compulsory joinder statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 389, subdivision (a), However

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

STAN LEE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. VS JOAN CELIA LEE

has not brought argument that its joinder could be ordered under Code of Civil Procedure section 389. (See Hodge v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

PAMELA N MCCARTHY VS STATE FARM, ET AL.

(CCP § 389(c).) If the Trust is not joined, the Court will consider whether the Trust is an indispensable party. In response, Plaintiffs suggest that the Trust’s status as an additional insured under the Policy is unclear. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs allege that the Policy contains the following notation: “Add Ins Michael A. LaBerge Trust.” (FAC ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.