What is a Motion for Summary Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Summary Judgment

Recent Rulings on Motion for Summary Judgment

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

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. Motion by Saddleback Corp. dba Saddleback Waterproof for Summary Judgment or Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Defendant Saddleback’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of Issues 5 and 6 (statute of limitations) is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

JANE R D DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

On January 22, 2020, the Court granted LAUSD’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff C.B.R. Doe. Now, LAUSD moves for summary judgment as to the remaining Plaintiffs, Jane C.J.B. Doe and Jane R.D. Doe. The parties stipulated to have one consolidated motion as to both remaining Plaintiffs for the sake of efficiency and judicial economy, given that Plaintiffs’ FACs are based on substantially similar allegations.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

GARRET ADELMAN, ET AL. VS JEROME ADELMAN, ET AL.

Adelman, et al MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION (CCP § 437c) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs Garret Adelman and Justin Adelman’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Therefore, Correa’s motion for summary judgment to the cross-complaint is granted. Cross-Defendant Correa is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

HAYK MELKUMYAN VS. ELMER A. DIAZ, ET AL

CASE NO: LC107326 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Dept. T 8:30 a.m. 9/22/20 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Introduction Plaintiff Hayk Melkumyan (“Plaintiff”) moves for summary judgment (“MSJ”) on the Complaint and against Defendant Elmer Diaz (“Defendant”) only. There is no opposition filed and Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DUTCH ENTERPRISES VS. ABDUL-AZIM

Defendant Amica’s motion for summary judgment is denied. A case management conference has already been scheduled for October 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. MILLER

The court’s entry of summary judgment on June 25, 2020 reflected, in part, its determination that the Defendant, a pro se litigant, had not filed an opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. This determination was in error. This court acknowledges its belated receipt of information demonstrating that the Defendant, in fact, on June 12, 2020 had filed an opposition to the granting of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NORMA IFRAZ VS. GILMER PACAHUAL

HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY SCAVENGERS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Introduction Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment by Defendant Scavengers Construction Services, Inc. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. Facts This action arises out of a four-vehicle traffic accident. Plaintiff Ms. Ifraz was driving a school bus in January 2018 when a truck driven by defendant Mr. Cucho struck the bus head-on on San Pablo Road, injuring Ms.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CHUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC ET AL VS XAVIER RUFFIN ET AL

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. “If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

Responding Party: Plaintiff Renee Thurman Ruling: E&G Property Management Co.’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Brown’s motion for summary judgment is also granted. Defendants Floyd Brown Jr. and E&G Property Management Co. filed separate motions for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of each cause of action in the complaint and plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

The court in Kelley was considering the sufficiency of the declaration of the defendant's expert in support of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In such cases, the defendant “bears the burden of persuasion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See, e.g., Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 845, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493, fn. omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DAY V. MARINER'S FUND, LLC

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication OFF CALENDAR – Notice of Withdrawal filed 9/8/2020

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

LULIN YAN, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.

.: 19STCV18770 Hearing Date: September 21, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant Montefino Homeowners Association (“Defendant”), among others, after Plaintiff Lulin Yan was hit by a falling tree branch. Now, Defendant moves for summary judgment, arguing that it did not own, possess, or control the tree at issue.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL. VS STEVEN BEAUCHMAN

Conclusion Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is granted as to the first cause of action for motor vehicle negligence but denied as to Sargsyan’s second cause of action for loss of consortium. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

BETH S. FIELD VS. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL

Bank and Rushmore’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. U.S. Bank and Rushmore are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling. DATED: September 21, 2020 _____________________ Hon. Theresa M. Traber Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

SABINE DE WEIJER VS. BROOKSIDE VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.

., § 437c(h) states: “If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAKOTA FINANCIAL, LLC VS TIGER TRANS INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication that was set for hearing on November 4, 2019, but then took the motion off calendar. On November 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication that the Court granted on February 19, 2020. Judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor on March 17, 2020. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees on April 1, 2020. Defendants filed an opposition on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SOLAR HYDROGEN HOLDINGS, INC. VS STL ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

A demurrer cannot be used as a substitute for a motion for summary judgment/adjudication. 1. INTRODUCTION Cross-Defendant Solar demurs to the Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SAXC”) filed by Cross-Complainants Arminta and Caswell. The demurrer is as to each cause of action (“COA”) pleaded in the SAXC.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EDUARDO VALENCIA CARDENAS VS MISSION COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

Barcay and Ehrhart submitted in support of Mission’s motion for summary judgment. Mission, in reply, submits an objection to each of the entirety of Dr. Goldweber’s and Dr. Gold’s amended declarations attached to Plaintiff’s opposition. The subject expert declarations concern the applicable standard of care, and whether any act or omission by Mission’s nursing or ancillary staff contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

BLAINE RICHARDS-MILLER VS ALPHA LIBRA MANAGEMENT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff did not oppose Alpha Libra’s motion for summary judgment, stating: “Plaintiff has completed his investigation into Alpha Libra Management, Inc. and is satisfied that Defendant Alpha Libra Management, Inc. should be dismissed from this action.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition, p.10:23-25.) Therefore, that motion was granted as stipulated. However, Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HE V. HAN

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication -- DENIED Before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiff Ruzhen He for Summary Adjudication of the second and fourth causes of action in her Complaint against Defendant Yong Han, for breach of oral contract and money had and received, respectively. The Court DENIES the motion. The Request for judicial notice is denied. Plaintiff asks the Court to judicially notice the Complaint in this case. The request is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

On March 16, 2020, the Court granted Defendant Hankin’s motion for summary judgment. On April 1, 2020, the Court ordered that Defendant shall have judgment in her favor, that Plaintiffs shall take nothing by their complaint in this action, and that Defendant shall recover her costs of suit as authorized by law. On April 21, 2020, Defendant filed a memorandum of costs, seeking $15,014.42 in costs. On July 21, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

EDUARD D BAUER VS STEVEN SCHOEPP

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DUETSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY VS JUAN LOPEZ ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JOHN J STEF VS PUEBLO RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP INC ET AL

Plaintiff’s discovery requests were prepared in response to defendants’ unsuccessful motion for summary judgment or alternative summary adjudication, and were made to each of the two defendant entities; defendants provided identical responses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara 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.