What is a Motion for Summary Adjudication?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Summary Adjudication

Recent Rulings on Motion for Summary Adjudication

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

s Motion for Summary Adjudication 3)Defendants University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc.; Division 8, Inc.; and Wirtz Tile & Stone Inc.'s Motion for Summary Adjudication 4)Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Turner Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Against Plaintiffs 1.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(b) requires a notice of motion for summary adjudication to identify each specific cause of action and claims for damages for which summary adjudication is sought. Here, Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not identify the individual issues. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivisions (b)(1) and (f)(2) require a motion for summary judgment and adjudication to include a separate statement of material facts.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL. VS STEVEN BEAUCHMAN

CASE NO: 18STCV08350 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IN PART Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. September 21, 2020 Background Plaintiffs, Manouk Mesropyan (“Mesropyan”) and Galina Sargsyan (“Sargsyan”) filed this action against Defendant, Steven Beauchman (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of an alleged vehicle collision on 3/18/17.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

VAEA VS. MARRA

A motion for summary adjudication under § 437c(f)(1) can be granted only "if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty." (See also Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 251.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

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

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the 2nd, 4th, and 6th causes of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

LUKE YUGUANG VS AMERICAN NEW ERA TV MEDIA GROUP INC

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Legal Standard A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARIA CARMEN LEAL VS. NELLY DAGSTANYAN

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on the 1st cause of action alleged in the SAC is denied. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication to the 1st cause of action is denied. Plaintiff Leal shall give notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARCONI V. CRIBBS

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE DECLARATORY RELIEF CAUSE OF ACTION IS GRANTED ONLY AS IT CONCERNS A DECLARATION THAT THE RECORDED GRANT DEED IS VOID AND DENIED AS TO THE REMAINING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLAIMS IN THE DECLARATORY RELIEF CAUSE OF ACTION. THE COURT GRANTS THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE RESCISSION CAUSE OF ACTION AS IT RELATES TO THE RECORDING OF THE ERRONEOUS GRANT DEED AND DENIES THE REMAINING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLAIMS OF THE RESCISSION CAUSE OF ACTION.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

RIKA CORPORATION VS. JOKAKE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ET AL

On the evening of August 27, 2020, the court published its tentative ruling on the matter, along with its tentative ruling on a motion for summary adjudication on the cause of action for recovery on payment bond, which was that the detailed tentative ruling for June 26, 2020 was to be the order of the court, in sum, that the motion to stay was granted and the action ordered stayed in its entirety. At the hearing, the motions were continued to October 2, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

PARSIG CHOULJIAN VS TOTAL RENAL CARE INC.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for summary adjudication as to 6th cause of action for retaliation (Issues 6 and 7). D. Wrongful Termination Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s 7th cause of action for wrongful termination fails because it is derivative of his retaliation claim. As discussed above, the motion is denied as to the 6th cause of action for retaliation. As such, the motion for summary adjudication is denied on the 7th cause of action as well (Issue 8). E.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT VS SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS US, LLC

s Motion for Summary Adjudication Re Soco's 4th Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief Against DTSC and OCWD Cross-Complainant Soco West, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the 4th cause of action in the consolidated Second Amended Cross-Complaint [ROA 7400] (SACC) is DENIED on both procedural and substantive grounds. 1. Procedural Issues It is well-settled that a lawsuit’s pleadings define the limits of summary judgment/adjudication motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

BUENA PARK SUCCESSOR AGENCY VS. BA HOTEL & RESORT, LLC

1) Real Party in Interest, Cardenas Three, LLC's Demurrer to Complaint (ROA # 146) 2) Real Party in Interest, Cardenas Three, LLC's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint (ROA # 147) 3)Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants City of Buena Park and Buena Park Successor Agency's Motion for Summary Adjudication (ROA # 82 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Pursuant to CCP § 437c(h), Plaintiffs City of Buena Park and Buena Park Successor Agency’s (“City”) motion for summary adjudication is CONTINUED to November 20,

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

HAIU NAN TSAI VS WILFREDO M CORREGIDOR, ET AL.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION [CCP § 437c] Moving Party: Plaintiff Hsiu Nan Tsai Responding Party: Defendant Wilfredo M.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VILPULKUMAR PATEL VS GOVIND VAGHASHIA, ET AL.

Because plaintiff presents a triable issue as to whether he was an exempt employee, the motion for summary adjudication as to Issue Nos. 2 through 7 is DENIED. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is also DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

GARDEN CITY, INC. V. ERIC SWALLOW, ET AL.

And, in opposition, Swallow reads too much into the Court’s previous order on Garden City’s motion for summary adjudication. Irrespective of this previous ruling on distinct questions, the allegations in the operative pleading are insufficient to plead equitable indemnity against Tierney in particular. Especially because equitable indemnity effectuates an apportionment of loss, it is fundamentally unclear what possible third-party loss Swallow seeks to apportion with Tierney.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

WEISSENBERG VS. CARQUINEZ WOMEN’S CLUB

The motion for summary adjudication with respect to the cause of action for breach of contract – indemnity is therefore denied. 3. The Causes of Action for Equitable Indemnity; Apportionment; and Declaratory Relief Regarding Alleged Duty to Indemnify and Defend. Cross-Defendants’ arguments on these causes of action rehearse their arguments on the contractual indemnity.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

STONE ASH LLC VS STONE ASH LLC

The motion for summary adjudication of the declaratory relief claim (count 5) in the FAC is denied. "Summary judgment is appropriate in a declaratory relief action when only legal issues are presented for the court's determination." California Public Records Research, Inc. v. County of Yolo (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 150, 185.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARK MCKINSTRY ET AL VS REGENCY CENTERS L P ET AL

McKinstry’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. VS MALDONADO CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

CASE NO: 18VECV00238 TENTATIVE ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT Dept. T 8:30 a.m. September 17, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING: DENIED There are numerous triable issues of fact as to whether there was breach of the contract. For this reason, the motion is denied. THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS WHICH PREVENT GRANTING OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION The motion cannot be granted because there are triable issues of material facts.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

DAMERON VS. SCRIPPS HEALTH INC

Conclusion Scripps' motion for summary adjudication of the elder abuse cause of action and attendant request for punitive damages is DENIED. Plaintiff is to give notice within two court days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MOHAMMAD H.K. AHAD, ET AL. VS RAFIQ ISLAM MOLLAH, ET AL.

The Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication addresses only that no triable issues of fact remain as to Plaintiffs’ entitlement to a partition by sale of the property; however, overseeing the sale itself, to the extent Plaintiffs seek such relief via the appointment of a referee and additional measures, is a separate procedure. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication of the 1st cause of action is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TRIKETTA ANDERSON VS EZ STORAGE (BURBANK)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Conclusion Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BRENDAN THOMPSON VS ENFANTS RICHES DEPRIMES LLC ET AL

Accordingly, upon the continued motion the court will proceed to address the merits of Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication. Dated: ____________________________ Gregory Alarcon Superior Court Judge

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

ANGELA WHITE VS ROBERT KARDASHIAN ET AL

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Robert Kardashian’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Defendants Kris Jenner, Kimberly Kardashian West, Khloe Kardashian, and Kylie Jenner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendants’ alternative motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 1 (false light) and Issue No. 3 (intentional interference with contractual relations) and is otherwise DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

MINOO SHAFII VS NATGEN PREMIER, ET AL.

The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Moving party is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.