What is a Motion to Extend the Time Within Which an Action Must Be Brought to Trial?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Extend the Time Within Which an Action Must Be Brought to Trial

Recent Rulings on Motion to Extend the Time Within Which an Action Must Be Brought to Trial

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

And, even if it were added to the pleading, it would fail as a matter of law for the reasons explained above. The cases relied upon by Plaintiffs, including Marina Tenants Association v. Deauville Marina Dev. Co. (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 122, Gilbert Fin. Corp. v. Steelform Contracting Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 65, and Shell v. Schmidt (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 279, do not support Plaintiffs’ third-party beneficiary theory. These cases confirm that incidental beneficiaries are not entitled to sue under a contract.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Proc. § 435.5(b) “[a] party moving to strike a pleading that has been amended after a motion to strike an earlier version of the pleading was granted shall not move to strike any portion of the pleadings on grounds that could have been raised by a motion to strike as to the earlier version of the pleading.” Here, the attorney’s fees request was included in the SAC, but Defendants did not move to strike such request. The Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUCILLE A BIONDI VS NICHOLAS A BIONDI

Issuance of Summons and service thereof because pleading in part is a civil action requiring compliance with the rules therefore. Petition requests damages. 3. Proposed Order GRAEME A FISHER THE FISHER TRUST DATED 4-10-19 WILLIAM H FISHER STEVEN N.H. WOOD

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ALVARO GALLEGOS, ET AL. VS LUCIANO GOMEZ, JR.

.)¿ In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿ (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)¿ “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.¿ Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”¿ (SKF Farms v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BARBARA SANCHEZ V. DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, ET AL.

In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

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

The operative pleading, the Third Amended Complaint, was filed on November 21, 2017and alleges a single cause of action for Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter XV § 151.09(G). The Court notes that no proof of service of the Summons and operative Complaint has been filed as to any Defendant, but Defendant Jerome answered on January 30, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WEI SI VS ALAN MENG TANG, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS VIRGINIA SUMUANO PEREZ, ET AL.

The demurring party is required to meet and confer in person or telephonically at least five days before the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The Demurrers are not accompanied by declarations demonstrating any meet and confer effort. Second, the Demurrers are brought on the basis of failure to allege facts in support of a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)) and uncertainty (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f)).

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANNA RIZHAVSKAYA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336 With the allegation that AHM is the manufacturer in possession of exclusive knowledge, there is sufficient fact pleading to support the element of duty. IT IS SO ORDERED. CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MICHAEL JAMES PORTEOUS

When Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading, Plaintiff obtained entry of default on April 28, 2020. On June 9, 2020, Defendant filed the instant (1) Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and any Default Judgment; and (2) Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO. V. GONZALES

The Court further notes that Plaintiff failed in its motion to state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Plaintiff does not address this in reply.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ALEX MORENO VS ALEJANDRO RIVERRA, ET AL.

Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LESLIE SPANN VS ELAINE WAILING CHU

In response to both of these requests, Defendant provided: Defendant has made a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry in an attempt to locate and identify documents and/or other items which are responsive to this request. Defendant is not in possession of any such documents and/or items which are responsive to this request. Defendant has requested said items from her cell phone service provider and will supplement this response if and when any documents are received.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, VS JESSE PIMENTEL, ET AL.

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (CCP § 403.040(a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP § 403.040(b).) In Walker v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSEPH POPP VS VALLEYWIDE ESCROW, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Legal Standard Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) For the purpose of a motion to strike, the Code of Civil Procedure defines a "pleading" as a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (a)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANDRE NEUMANN V. GISELA . NEUMANN, ET AL.

It states that he “met and conferred” by email “at least five days before the date a responsive pleading was due to be filed.” It is not clear when the SACC was served, but it was filed just four days before the email, so the attempt to meet and confer was, technically, at least five days before a responsive pleading was due.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

Yee then lists 14 categories of pleading amendments “it is anticipated” can be made following the deposition. Ms. Yee seeks an open-ended extension of the time to file an amended complaint, based on this showing. The Court has two problems with this approach. First, attorneys are supposed to have at least some evidentiary basis for a pleading’s allegations before the pleading is filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

WEEKLY VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE

Lipsy (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 633, 638 [“[t]o state a cause of action to remove a cloud [under Civil Code section 3412], instead of pleading in general terms that the defendant claims an adverse interest, the plaintiff must allege, inter alia, facts showing actual invalidity of the apparently valid instrument or piece of evidence”], disapproved on other grounds, Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 35-36.) California law does not require that the assignment of a deed of trust be recorded.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CITY OF COSTA MESA V. NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC SERVICES, INC.

Proc. § 128.7(b)(2)) – as opposed to presenting the pleading to harass or making allegations of fact without evidentiary support or denials of fact not warranted by the evidence (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b)(1), (3), (4)) —then monetary sanctions are not to be awarded against the client as opposed to the attorney filed the offending pleading. Cromwell v. Cummings (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 10, 13 n. 4; Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 387, 407.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

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

Defendant Shul and Jewish Center Ahavath Israel, Inc. also asserts that its “counsel did not calendar the responsive pleading deadline because the proof of service of summons was not filed until after the answer was due.” (Id. at pp. 5:27-6:1, citing Malamphy Decl., ¶ 4; Proof of Personal Service.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY 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

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DANIELS VS WELLS FARGO BANK

“This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 72, citing Hill Transp. Co. v. Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 707.) Negligence The only negligent acts alleged are “improper and untimely securitization and assignment.” (¶ 90.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

GMP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. V. METAFORMULA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

“[T]he burden is on the Plaintiff to show the manner in which [it] may amend, and how the amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349). If Plaintiff wishes leave to file a third amended complaint to attempt to allege a quantum meruit claim, it shall be prepared at the hearing to advise the Court specifically what facts it can allege that will address the defects in this pleading. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ROBERT LEEBURG, ET AL. VS TEMIDAYO AKINYEMI, ET AL.

These allegations are sufficient to support alter ego allegations against Akineymi at the pleading stage. (See Misik v. D’Arco (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1073 [listing factors probative of unity of interest].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SALISBURY GROUP, INC. V. EDALAT

The challenge is limited to the “four corners” of the pleading (which includes exhibits attached and incorporated therein) and matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code §§ 451 or 452. Although California courts take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant what plaintiff is complaining about and what remedies are being sought.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

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.