What is a Motion for Trial Preference?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Trial Preference

Recent Rulings on Motion for Trial Preference

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not explain why they would be unable at the conclusion of trial to obtain a reinstatement of an STR permit in the event one is revoked. In short, the Court agrees with the City that each of these alleged harms is either too speculative and/or can be adequately compensated in money damages or by another legal remedy.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

., that Plaintiffs have only suffered economic damages, and further that Plaintiffs will not be able at trial to show they suffered property damage in connection with their business operations. Turner failed to do so.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

J of the Pomona Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.Plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial. (CC § 3295(c).) “[B]efore a trial court may enter an order allowing discovery of financial condition information under Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c), it must (1) weigh the evidence presented by both sides, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.” (Jabro v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Risk of maintaining class action status through trial. Even if a class is certified, there is always a risk of decertification. (See Weinstat v. Dentsply Intern., Inc. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1226 (“Our Supreme Court has recognized that trial courts should retain some flexibility in conducting class actions, which means, under suitable circumstances, entertaining successive motions on certification if the court subsequently discovers that the propriety of a class action is not appropriate.”).) 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South Central District, Compton, the Honorable Maurice Leiter, Judge presiding in Department A, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

EDNA BETETA VS LNR PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL.

PFAHLER, Judge presiding in Department F49, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

VASON RATANAKASIKORN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS FRANCISCO A. PALACIOS-RAMIREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the South District, Long Beach, the Honorable MICHAEL VICENCIA, Judge presiding in Department S26, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

HARVEY KREITENBERG, ET AL. VS MICHAEL ROSENBERG, ET AL.

Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 4:420; Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a); see Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 16-17 [where motion to quash was filed after defendant’s time to plead expired, but plaintiff made no objection and court addressed motion on its merits, motion to quash was deemed timely brought within time allowed by the court].) Complainants have the initial burden to evidence valid statutory service of a summons and complaint. (Dill v. Berquist Const.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

TONY WATSON, ET AL. VS CAMI AUTOMOTIVE, INC, ET AL.

The trial court issued an order compelling Toyota to produce them for depositions in California, but the appellate court reversed the order, holding that the residency limitation set forth in CCP § 1989 applies not only to trial, but also to discovery, and that CCP § 2025.260 does not permit depositions of parties or their officers, directors, managing agents, or employees to be taken at a place more distant than that permitted by CCP § 1989. (197 Cal.App.4th at 1109, 1113-14.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PAPAFINGOS VS. KIRKWOOD ORANGE

. § 36(a), permits a party who is over 70 years of age to petition the court for trial preference, which the court must grant if it makes both of the following findings: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation. Here, Plaintiff is 93 years old and, as the Plaintiff in this action, she has a substantial interest in this action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

JUDI BEDDOW, ET AL. VS ALTEC, INC.,, ET AL.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE CENTRAL DISTRICT, JUDGE YOLANDA OROZCO presiding in DEPT. 31 of the STANLEY MOSK Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

WILLIE B. WHITE BY AND THROUGH HER SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, CYNTHIA WHITE, ET AL. VS JOHN CONRAD, M.D., ET AL.

Hofer, Judge presiding in Department D, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHIAU-YU HSUEH VS KENNY MING HO LIU

In his declaration, Defendant asserts that the court trial caught him by surprise which arguably would be a reason to grant Defendant’s requested relief. However, as shown in Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendant knew as early as January 28, 2019 that trial would be held on September 24, 2019, when the Court granted his ex parte application to continue trial. Defendant’s claims that he was representing himself also do not provide him relief.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

BELOV VS. IRAHETA

Since the trial is set for 7/19/21, the other parties and the public will not be prejudiced by a short stay.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

ARIETTA VS. ROCK N ROBLES, INC.

If a plaintiff has pleaded several theories, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating there are no material facts requiring trial on any of them. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 889.) If a defendant fails to meet this initial burden, the plaintiff need not oppose the motion and the motion must be denied. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

ANNA MARIA PATTERSON VS NANCI ROBERTSON

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Trial Setting Preference Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANNA MARIA PATTERSON VS NANCI ROBERTSON

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Trial Setting Preference TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiff Anna Maria Patterson for trial preference is denied. Background: As alleged in the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiff Anna Maria Patterson, as trustee of the Kerry and Anna Patterson Trust dated 7/9/90, (Patterson): Patterson is the owner of real property located at 3375 Foothill Road, Unit 711, Carpinteria. (FAC, ¶ 7.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

HARRY TRAN VS ST GEORGE & ASSOCIATES

On March 6, 2020, Tran filed his notice of intent to move for a new trial. On May 18, 2020, Tran filed his notice of appeal. On May 28, 2020, the court heard argument in the motion to set aside and vacate judgment and the motion for a new trial. On June 5, 2020, the court denied the motion to set aside and vacate judgment and the motion for a new trial by its order after hearing. On June 30, 2020, St. George filed the motion for attorney fees now before the court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RAMON TINOCO LOPEZ, ET AL. VS LAURO LEAL, ET AL.

MOONEY presiding in DEPT. 68 of the STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court. The Order is signed and filed this date, and incorporated herein by reference. Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

ESMOND VS. THE RICHARD F. CRAWFORD COMPANY

The new allegations are closely related to cross-complainant’s prior allegations and no trial date has been set. Plaintiff’s arguments as to the merits of the new claims may be raised through a demurrer, motion to strike, motion for summary judgment, or other appropriate motion, which is consistent with the preferred practice to permit an amendment subject to a later motion. Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1048.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

MOHAMMAD ALKAHTANI VS CEDARS-SINAI

The Court advances and vacates the final status conference and trial dates. The Court also advances and vacates all hearing dates for pending motions. The Court shall hold an Order to Show Cause re: Bankruptcy Stay and, in the alternative, a Motions Setting Conference for January 25, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: October 2, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.

Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 7:49.) As a result, “[w]here the dates alleged in the complaint show the action is barred by the statute of limitations, a general demurrer lies. . . . The running of the statute must appear “clearly and affirmatively” from the face of the complaint. It is not enough that the complaint might be time-barred.” (Id. at ¶ 7:50; Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 42.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LEAH ERBLICH VS MORRIS FRIEDMAN, ET AL.

Legal Standard The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL VS CANDACE HOWELL, ET AL.

Thus, this Court’s main concern was ruling in a manner in this action that could potentially conflict with Judge Alarcon’s preliminary injunction order or his determinations at trial. Third, Plaintiff argues that the United States and California Supreme Courts have decided that eviction and quiet title actions can be simultaneously litigated. (Mot. at pp.2-4.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • 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 load this page.