What is a Motion to Dismiss?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

Recent Rulings on Motion to Dismiss

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Dismiss Attorney David Chaffin of The Wolf Firm SUMMARY OF ACTION On May 17, 2006, Plaintiff Manuel Borobia executed a promissory note agreement with (defendant) Countrywide Home Loans for $550,000 as either part of a purchase transaction or refinance of certain real property located at 13216 Norris Ave., Sylmar. The note was secured by a deed of trust on the property. The deed of trust was subsequently assigned to Defendant Bank of New York Mellon on March 14, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

VICTOR ALCANTARA VS ALEJANDRO SUAREZ ET AL

(emphasis added) Accepting Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration of fault regarding his failure to appear at hearings and failure oppose the motion to dismiss, the motion still fails to establish that Plaintiff is entitled to relief under either the discretionary or mandatory provisions of CCP 473(b). The motion is not accompanied by a proposed pleading (i.e., a proposed opposition to the motion to dismiss or a properly executed settlement/release). As such, the motion is not in proper form.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

VANESSA WHITNEY VS CHAIM DERRY

Prior Motion to Dismiss On 2/04/20, the Court ruled on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court ruled: On 12/18/19, Defendant filed this motion to dismiss the 11/21/19 Judgment. The motion is denied for the following reasons: Defendant is in default. Entry of Defendant's default instantaneously cuts off his right to appear in the action. Defendant is “out of court.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS HONGMIN ZHAO, ET AL.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to obey a discovery order. Defendants’ motion was made on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to honor the deadlines set forth in the stipulation and protective order. On August 13, 2020, the Court ruled on Defendants’ motion and denied Defendants’ request for terminating sanctions[1] and contempt sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court, however, granted Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,125.00.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

FELIX AJEGBO, CO-TRUSTEES, JUDGMENT CREDITORS ADMINISTRATORS, BENEFICIARIES VS DR. DAVID Y. LEE, MD, ET AL.

The Court stated that if both were filed, the motion to dismiss would be continued on the Court’s own motion to the date set for the hearing on the motion for leave to file a FAC, and that either was not done by Plaintiff, the motion to dismiss would be granted on the continued hearing date. The Court’s order also stated that “[i]f the Motion for Leave to File is denied, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted; if it is granted, then the Motion to Dismiss will be denied.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

“An issue may be submitted and determined on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment . . . [,] a motion for directed verdict, or their equivalents, as well as on a judgment entered on a verdict. A determination may be based on a failure of pleading or of proof as well as on the sustaining of the burden of proof.” (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 226 [citations omitted].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RAPHAEL IRVING VS GREATER NEW BETHEL BAPTIST CHURCH INC ET A

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to dismiss, and the remittitur was issued on August 7, 2020. Defendants now move for an award of attorney fees and costs as the prevailing parties on the appeal of the Judgment, in the total amount of $11,058.54. The motion is unopposed. Discussion The anti-SLAPP statute provides that “in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 583.4310, 583.420, CRC 3.1340, 3.1342 (discretionary dismissal for failure to served summons and complaint within two years of commencement of the action.) the Court intends on its own motion to dismiss all defendants, including Doe defendants, who have not appeared in this action, had their default entered, or have not been served with the summons and complaint on or before August 11, 2020. /// /// IV DISCOVERY A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

URBAN FRANCHISEE HOLDINGS, LLC VS VENTURE PROJECTS, INC.

C/O: 11-08-21 TRIAL DATE: 11-23-21 PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE MOVING PARTY: Defendant Venture Projects, Inc. dba Concept Services RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Urban Franchisee Holdings, LL MOTION TO DISMISS (CCP § 410.30) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Venture Projects, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHARON A. SPERLING VS PAUL SPERLING, JR.

Sperling’s Motion to Dismiss Attorney is placed OFF CALENDAR. The Court notes that a valid Substitution of Attorney was filed on September 18, 2020 removing Plaintiff’s former attorney George M. Halimi, Esq. as counsel of record and substituting in Plaintiff as a self-represented party. Accordingly, the instant motion is moot. The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HEATHER C STOTTS VS ARTT LEDESMA ET AL

(f) [setting forth authority for the court to defer ruling on a motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution].) The Court sets an OSC for October 14, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in this department re: Plaintiff’s discovery efforts (i.e., propounding, responding). Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

GENTRY V. OCTA PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Motion to Dismiss – CONTINUED to November 2, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. The Motion to Dismiss brought by Defendants Orange County Transit Authority and First Transit, Inc. is CONTINUED to November 2, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. Defendants are ordered to (1) serve notice of this continued hearing date on Plaintiff, by mail, no later than October 2, 2020; and (2) file a Proof of Service, demonstrating the above, no later than 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

GARCIA V. SANCHEZ

Plaintiffs’ filed no opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. It has been over five years since the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs have failed to timely serve defendant with the summons and complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore granted. As a result of the Court’s rulings, the order to show cause re dismissal is vacated as moot.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

LUIS RODRIGUEZ VS. SECRET RECIPES, INC.

to Dismiss Appeal dated 7/9/19 (Court of Appeal Case No.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. TRAN

Motion to Dismiss This is special petition brought pursuant to Ins. Code §11580.2(f) to compel discovery (FRogs, RPD, depos) in a UIM action to terminate the UIM arbitration based upon claimant Nguyen’s repeated discovery abuses. On 09/09/16, petitioner caused to be served by mail on Attorney Alex Benedict a set of form interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Nguyen served unverified responses to both.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

YUKIO TAIRA VS HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

Lombardi Associates’ Motion to Dismiss and Denying Defendant Concordia Care, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Exhibit 3); Defendant Matrix Absence Management, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff Yukio Taira’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, wherein Matrix previously asserted that the litigation privilege under Civil Code Section 47(b) applied. (Exhibit 4). Both parties’ requests are granted. The existence and legal significance of these documents are proper matters for judicial notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PETER CHOE, ET AL. VS SUNG HYUN CHUNG

Also at that hearing, cross-defendant Choe made an oral motion to dismiss the cross-complaint for failure to amend. The court granted that motion and ordered the cross-complaint against Choe be dismissed with prejudice. On August 7, 2020, Defendant (previously self-represented) substituted Bret Lewis as his new attorney of record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

IN RE MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Given the significantly different pleading standards and different (though related) theories of misrepresentation at issue here and in the Federal Action, the federal court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss may or may not address issues relevant to the Court’s determinations here.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

TAYLOR VS PLACE [E-FILE]

MOTION TO DISMISS CIVIL COMPLAINT FILING FOR LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE FILING PROCEDURE WHICH HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF THE TIMELY FILING AND EXECUTION OF HIS SUMMONS IN EACH DEFENDANT by plaintiff Michael Douglas Taylor is off-calendar. Rather than taking the matter off calendar, on June 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the request to dismiss his civil complaint. Defendants have indicated both motions are moot. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate is taken off-calendar.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MCDANIEL VS APICAL INDUSTRIES INC

Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay action is granted. Pursuant to CCP § 410.30(a), the court may stay or dismiss an action if the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice, an action filed in California should be adjudicated elsewhere. Defendant has met its burden of establishing that there is a suitable alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests require the alternative forum be used. Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHAWN LINDSEY VS JAIDEU KAVETY

.: 19STCV18296 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: TAMBULI CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. September 24, 2020 On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff Rowena Peralta filed this action against defendants Dominador Chong and Tambuli Corporation (“Defendant”) arising from a May 26, 2017 trip and fall. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the Court’s January 14, 2020 order to Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s written discovery. This Motion was filed on June 4, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

QUINTANA VS. LEON

Defendant Lorena Avina's unopposed motion to dismiss for failure to bring case to trial is granted pursuant to CCP §§ 583.310 and 583.360. The Court grants defendant Salvatore Leon's request for joinder. The Court deems the lack of opposition to the motion to be a concession as to the merits of the motion. In addition, notwithstanding the lack of opposition, the Court has reviewed the moving papers and is persuaded that the motion is meritorious.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MCDANIEL VS APICAL INDUSTRIES INC

Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay action is granted. Pursuant to CCP § 410.30(a), the court may stay or dismiss an action if the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice, an action filed in California should be adjudicated elsewhere. Defendant has met its burden of establishing that there is a suitable alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests require the alternative forum be used. Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Gatewood’s (1) Motion to Dismiss; and (2) Motion to Set Aside Right To Attach Order And Release Attached Property are DENIED. Court clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY VS GABRIELA GONZALEZ

On April 24, 2020, Petitioner Allstate filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. On July 9, 2020, the Court scheduled the hearing on Petitioner Allstate’s motion to dismiss for September 24, 2020. Trial is set for June 15, 2021. PARTY’S REQUESTS Petitioner Allstate asks the Court to dismiss Respondent Gonzalez’s underinsured motorist arbitration for failing to comply with the Court’s March 13, 2020 order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 233     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.