Motion for Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Intentional Spoliation

Recent Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Intentional Spoliation

1-25 of 10000 results

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

“Punitive damages are recoverable in those fraud actions involving intentional, but not negligent misrepresentations.” (All. Mortg. Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 1241.) Thus, absent factual allegations of oppression or malice, Plaintiff has no grounds on which to base her punitive damages request. A review of the TAC reveals that the only allegations pertaining to such conduct were the allegations contained within the 2nd cause of action to which Defendants successfully demurred.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Contract) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Tort) Negligent Maintenance of Premises Maintenance of Nuisance Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5) Compel Mediation On November 14, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ALVARO GALLEGOS, ET AL. VS LUCIANO GOMEZ, JR.

“Causes of action for intentional and negligent misrepresentation sound in fraud and, therefore, each element must be pleaded with specificity. [Citations.]” (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1166.) The specificity requirement extends to each and every element. (Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 776).

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BARBARA SANCHEZ V. DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, ET AL.

(c)(2).) “ ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF PETER HALOWACK

Replace with: "6.7 Omissions Intentional: Any relative not provided for in this trust shall not receive any part of the trust estate. However, the provisions of Probate Code 21600 et seq. shall apply." - Sections 6.9 and 6.10 shall be deleted. The proposed pour-over will, at Third, should delete the second paragraph starting: "If no successor Executor is designated to act in the event of the death...."

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANNA RIZHAVSKAYA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

CACI 3116 which explains fraud in lay terms states: “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact with the intention of depriving plaintiff of property or of a legal right or otherwise to cause plaintiff injury. (Emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

TAULER SMITH LLP VS JOSEPH VALERIO, ET AL.

. § 1030; (2) Fraud; and (3) Intentional Interference With Business Relations. On January 16, 2020, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court. The case was remanded on March 11, 2020. On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion to Reclassify the Action to a Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSEPH POPP VS VALLEYWIDE ESCROW, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

“Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c).) “‘Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’ [Citation.]” (Lackner v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

Finally, insofar as plaintiff is attempting to impose vicarious liability on defendant for the intentional tort of a staff member, plaintiff faces the same hurdle discussed in Part B of this ruling above. (See also, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657, subd (c).) (See, Minute Order, dated 1-13-20.) In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s allegations in support of the elder abuse causes of action now read as follows: 39.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiff’s Burden of Showing Pretext & Improper Animus Because defendant has met its burden of showing a legitimate reason for taking an adverse employment action, plaintiff faces the burden of showing pretext and intentional retaliation or discrimination. In other words, plaintiff has the opportunity “to attack the employer’s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive.” (Moore v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION OF LAGUNA WOODS V. DICKINSON

Alternatively, Cross-Defendants’ Motion asks the Court to order monetary sanctions against Dickinson, in their favor, “in the amount of $4,182.00, representing the reasonable costs of preparing this motion and responding to the cross-petitioner’s persistent, intentional, and repeated failure to participate in the discovery process, and his failure to obey prior orders of the court.” Notice of Motion and Motion at 3:1-6. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

DON J. REYNOLDS, ET AL. VS JAMES V. BACON

The Complaint alleges sixteen (16) causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duties as Officer (Derivatively); (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duties as Director (Derivatively); (3) Unjust Enrichment (Derivatively); (4) Intentional Interference with Contract; (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (6) Intentional Interference with Contract; (7) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (8) Intentional Interference with Contract; (9) to (11) Conversion; (12) Unfair Competition

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SYNN HEE KANG VS JAMES MAN-GIL JUNG

Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Intentional Tort is stated on Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001(3), the mandatory attachment for form complaints. Plaintiff alleges that on October 15, 2019, “Defendants, and each of them intentional [sic] caused injuires [sic] to the Plaintiff, without informed consent, by using unconventional and proven technique and treatment on the Plaintiff resulting in severe burns.” (Compl., IT-1.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NOBIA JOYCE VS SHAWN M. MILLNER

The complaint, filed July 17, 2015, asserts causes of action against Defendants for: Partition (CCP §§ 872.210, 872.230, 872.820) Accounting Conversion Elder Abuse Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress On December 2, 2015, the court granted Defendants’ motion to strike out Joyce’s 4th-6th causes of action. On December 8, 2015, Shawn M. Millner (in her individual capacity only) and Todd filed a cross-complaint against Joyce.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SHEHATA V. SLIBI

First Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation The essential elements for intentional misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231. Every element of fraud must be pleaded with specificity.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PEGGY HILL VS UCLA, ET AL.

On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a form complaint for intentional tort and violation of her privacy rights, seeking damages of $100,000,000.00. (Complaint, Caption, ¶ 14.) On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a form first amended complaint (“FAC”) for (1) general negligence; and (2) premises liability, seeking damages of $100,000,000.00. (FAC, ¶¶ 10, 14.) On March 5, 2020, the Court sustained with leave to amend Defendant Ami Ben-Artzi, M.D.’s demurrer, giving Plaintiff ten days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

GITI SHOUSHANI VS SHAVER KORFF CASTRONOVO LLP, ET AL.

Fraud under California Civil Code, Section 3294(c)(3) “means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” California Civil Code, Section 3294(2) defines oppression as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

As the City accurately notes, waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of the facts. (See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 31.) The burden of proving waiver is on the party claiming it – here the City. (Id.) Waiver must be proven “by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and doubtful cases will be decided against waiver.” (Id., internal quotes omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

PHILLIP BAIZ VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

As the City accurately notes, waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a knovra right with knowledge ofthe facts. (See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4* 1, 31.) The burden of proving waiver is on the party claiming it - here the City. {Id.) Waiver must be proven "by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and doubtful cases will be decided against waiver." {Id., intemal quotes omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

BARKER VS. COHEN

“It is well settled that the litigation privilege bars causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” (Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 324, 341.) The only exception has been for malicious prosecution actions. (Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187, 1193-94.) The litigation privilege “applies without regard to ‘motives, morals, ethics or intent.’ [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

VINCENT DEROSA, ET AL. VS K9 LOFT INC., ET AL.

Thus, while intentional destruction or spoliation of critical evidence may very well be the type of conduct meriting significant sanctions, including terminating sanctions (see, e.g., Williams v. Russ (2009) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223-1225), on this record, plaintiffs have utterly failed to make any showing that evidence has been destroyed (intentional or otherwise) or that any sanction would be warranted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CALIFORNIA CREDITS GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS NORTH AMERICAN CLIENT SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s opposition relies on the assertion that NACS intentional conduct caused Defendants’ breach of the Agreements. As there is no triable issue as to whether NACS’s purchase of Defendants stock breached or disrupted the Agreements, this claims fails Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of the of the 7th cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations is GRANTED. CONCLUSION Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

LUKE YUGUANG VS AMERICAN NEW ERA TV MEDIA GROUP INC

Fraud The elements for an intentional misrepresentation claim are: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) with knowledge of its falsity, (3) with the intent to induce another's reliance on the misrepresentation, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 1244, 1255.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PATTY CORNWALL VS BARRY BEITLER, ET AL.

Just like intentional fraud, specific facts must be alleged. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to allege a cause of action for fraud or negligent misrepresentation because (1) Plaintiff has failed to meet the heighted pleading requirement for fraud and negligent misrepresentation and (2) Plaintiff’s reliance on such representations are not justifiable as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARINA HABA VS VICINO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

On August 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Tortious Interference with Contract; (5) Aiding and Abetting Tortious Interference with Contract; (6) Intentional Misrepresentations; (7) Negligent Misrepresentations; (8) Usury [Civ. Code §1916-3]; and (9) Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. Prof. Code §§17200 et seq.].

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.