What is a Motion for Sanctions for Negligent Spoliation?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Negligent Spoliation

Recent Rulings on Motion for Sanctions – Negligent Spoliation

1-25 of 10000 results

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Punitive Damages Defendants move to strike punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff has not plead oppressive or malicious conduct into the TAC, and that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation is defective as elaborated in the concurrent demurrer. In light of the demurrer, the only remaining cause of action is the 1st cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. “Punitive damages are recoverable in those fraud actions involving intentional, but not negligent misrepresentations.” (All.

  • 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

JANE R D DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

On September 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC), alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) negligent hiring/retention/supervision. On July 25, 2018, Plaintiffs Jane C.B.R. Doe and Jane C.J.B. Doe in related Case No.: BC715363 filed suit against LAUSD. On September 13, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC), alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) negligent hiring/retention/supervision.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

DORIS CONSIER-FAULKNER V. 40 PRADO HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER, ET AL.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff Doris Consier-Faulkner filed this lawsuit against Defendants 40 Prado Homeless Services Center, David Bartholomew, and Kindra Gomez, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, and (3) negligent supervision/retention/hiring. Plaintiff alleges that, on January 11, 2019, her car broke down near the 40 Prado Homeless Shelter (the Shelter) in San Luis Obispo, and Mr. Bartholomew, a Shelter employee, approached Plaintiff at Ms. Gomez’s directive to assist.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

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.

“A plaintiff seeking to recover damages from a negligent defendant must allege a causal connection between the negligence and the plaintiff’s injury. [Citation.] A plaintiff ‘must allege a causal connection between the negligence ... and the injury he suffered. Ordinarily that is accomplished by implication from the juxtaposition of the allegations of wrongful conduct and harm. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

FRANCISCA TORRES VS MIGUEL CARILLO, JR., ET AL.

Correa’s evidence is sufficient to meet his moving burden to show he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as Plaintiff cannot prove he was negligent in any way in connection with the subject automobile accident. Because Plaintiff did not file opposition and therefore necessarily did not raise a triable issue of material fact, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

WEI SI VS ALAN MENG TANG, ET AL.

As Defendant is a governmental entity, it cannot be liable for common law negligent entrustment. Therefore, the motion to strike is granted. Conclusion and Order Defendant’s motion to strike references to negligent entrustment is granted without leave to amend. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: September 22, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

The Court finds that, despite two intervening opportunities to amend, plaintiff has still failed to adequately allege a negligent act. The one concrete allegation in the Fifth Cause of Action is that defendant “neglected plaintiff by allowing her to lay [sic] in her own blood after being battered and failing to obtain proper medical care to treat her severe injuries ...” (SAC, p. 10, ¶ 48.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

EMERALD A ANGULO ET AL VS AYMAN ALLADAWI M D ET AL

Motions for Summary Judgment Moving Arguments Defendants aver Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the assertion that Defendants were negligent in prescribing and administering RhoGAM to Emerald, which caused the death of Emerald’s fetus. Defendants argue the evidence establishes that RohGAM did not cause or contribute to Emerald’s injuries and damages. Defendants support their motion with the expert declaration of David A. Miller, M.D. Dr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DANIELS VS WELLS FARGO BANK

Negligence The only negligent acts alleged are “improper and untimely securitization and assignment.” (¶ 90.) There is no allegation of how the allegedly negligent acts or omissions of Wells Fargo resulted in damage to the plaintiff. A negligent act that causes no damages is not actionable. When amending, the plaintiff shall clarify the allegations of this cause of action as to Wells Fargo. For instance, ¶ 91 does not identify the negligent actor.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MIDLAND ENTERTAINMENT LLC VS HYDRA GROUP LLC ET AL

Newton notes that no claim for breach of contract was alleged against him in the original or First Amended Complaint, but rather there were claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. (Motion at p. 3.) These claims were dismissed against Newton on November 8, 2018, as the representations were alleged against all defendants collectively and not pleaded with the requisite particularity. (See 11/8/2018 Order.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NATASHA WHITE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST VS COLEMAN SMITH

White filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants Coleman Smith, Inc. dba the Service Company Escrow, Leotis Coleman in his professional and individual capacity, and Leshan Bircher in her professional and individual capacity, alleging: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; (3) breach of contract; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) conversion; (8) accounting; and (9) common count.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

Second Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation To state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must plead the following elements: “(1) a false statement of a material fact that the defendant honestly believes to be true, but made without reasonable grounds for such belief, (2) made with the intent to induce reliance, (3) reasonable reliance on the statement, and (4) damages.” Century Sur. Co. v. Crosby Ins., Inc. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 116, 129.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SOLEIMANI & ASSOCIATES, APLC VS FARIBA DJAHANBANI

These limitations periods are tolled during the times that: (i) the client has not sustained actual injury, (ii) the negligent attorney continues to represent the client, (iii) the attorney willfully conceals facts constituting the negligence, or (iv) the plaintiff is under a disability that restricts the plaintiff's ability to commence legal action. (Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 559, 567.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CESAR ROMERO ET AL VS BROCCA CUSTOM FINISHING CARPENTRY INC

On October 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) fraud; (4) constructive fraud; (5) recovery pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 7031(b); (6) breach of implied warranty; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify Craig N.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

EDUARDO VALENCIA CARDENAS VS MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

A medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because he chooses one medically acceptable method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that another medically accepted method would have been a better choice. CACI 506. Likewise, a medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because his efforts are unsuccessful or he makes an error that was reasonable under the circumstances. CACI 505.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SARAY ROMERO VAZQUEZ ET AL VS HUNTER WAYNE LASSOS ET AL

Finally, Mary Carnes and Matt Ikemoto are named in the SAC because Zelig “now realizes” that “they were personally very negligent relative to entrusting the company car to Lassos and not monitoring his credit card purchases.” (Zelig Decl. ¶ 49(c).) Defendants’ challenges to the amended complaint are focused primarily on objection to the truth of the allegations or whether causes of action are properly alleged.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BARBARA WONG VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

But when a public official has a legal duty to act in a particular manner, he should be liable for his wrongful or negligent failure to perform the duty; and his employing public entity should be liable if such failure occurs in the scope of his employment. (4 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports 801 (1963) at p. 830-31.) (emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GITI SHOUSHANI VS SHAVER KORFF CASTRONOVO LLP, ET AL.

“The elements of a cause of action for legal malpractice are (1) the attorney-client relationship or other basis for duty; (2) a negligent act or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” (Id. at 1528.) Based upon a review of the first and second causes of action asserted in the complaint, the Court finds that the first and second causes of action in the complaint are not duplicative of each other.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SUSANNA KHACHATRYAN VS SALVADOR BAUTISTA

Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, premises liability, negligence per se, strict liability and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition. Defendant has served four separate deposition notices for Plaintiff to appear beginning May 23, 2019. (Declaration of Jason Cohen, Exhibits A-E.) However, Plaintiff has not yet appeared for deposition. (Declaration of Jason Cohen, ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

With respect to the claim of spoliation of evidence, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate on this motion that any such spoliation occurred. In their motion papers, they claim defendants have not produced a video of the incident because such video was “erroneously destroyed or not save [sic] by defendant” (Mtn. at 9; see also Reply at 2-3), but plaintiffs provide no evidence in support of their claims. (Hebberd-Kulow Enterprises, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LUKE YUGUANG VS AMERICAN NEW ERA TV MEDIA GROUP INC

Generally, representations must have been about past or existing facts, and opinions about future events or values do not constitute intentional or negligent misrepresentations, with exceptions such as a party is held out as possessing superior knowledge and plaintiff reasonably relies. (Neu-Visions Sports v. Soren (2000) 86 Cal. App. 4th 303, 308.) A misrepresentation need not be express but may be implied by or inferred from the circumstances. (Universal By-Products, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SALVADOR DELGADILLO, ET AL. VS CARLOS P CASIM, ET AL.

On March 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants asserting causes of action for: (1) Dependent Adult Abuse; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Hiring and Supervision; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (5) Breach of Contract.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • 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.