What is a motion to suppress?

“[O]n a seasonable motion to suppress the deposition, accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, the court may determine that the reasons given for the failure or refusal to approve the transcript require rejection of the deposition in whole or in part.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.520.)

Rule 5-220 states that an attorney shall not suppress evidence that he or his client has a legal obligation to produce. Lawyers are subject to discipline for participating in the suppression or destruction of evidence. (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6106, 6077; Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 5-220 (member shall not suppress evidence member has legal obligation to reveal or produce).)

The court has the inherent power to “provide orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers” and to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” (Id., § 128.)

“Our discovery statutes are designed to ascertain the truth, not suppress it.” (Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Mishin) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 837.) “Any doubt about discovery is to be resolved in favor of disclosure.” (Id.; see also Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Nexbio, Inc.) (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1346-1347, citing and discussing Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 835-837.)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Suppress – Civil

Recent Rulings on Motion to Suppress – Civil

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

There is a general rule against enjoining public officers or agencies from performing their duties. This rule would not preclude a court from enjoining unconstitutional or void acts, but to support a request for such relief the plaintiff must make a significant showing of irreparable injury.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 1471.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Rulings on Evidentiary Objections The Court DECLINES to rule on all of the parties’ objections because "the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion." (CCP § 437c(q).). In this regard, Saddleback’s Objection No. 8 (page 15 of ROA 2642) to the Patel Declaration is sustained as to the phrase “and others representing 5th Rock T-12” on the grounds of hearsay and otherwise is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3). The hearings on the applications are continued to 7/19/19 to allow the applicants to provide supplemental information regarding the foregoing factors. The supplemental information should be submitted by 7/12/19. No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

The second is where a party seeks to “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).) This subdivision authorizes motions to strike “a pleading due to improprieties in its form or in the procedures pursuant to which it was filed. This provision is commonly invoked to challenge pleadings filed in violation of a deadline, court order, or requirement of prior leave of court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

Plaintiff has failed to submit a summary of the case, as per Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(1).) 3. The Declaration of Michael McGinley is devoid of any facts supporting his belief that the Equipment is in Dragon’s and Zhang’s possession. 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PISMO BEACH SELF-STORAGE, L.P. V. CITY OF PISMO BEACH, ET AL.

“Generally speaking, a legislative action is the formulation of a rule to be applied to all future cases, while an adjudicatory act involves the actual application of such a rule to a specific set of existing facts.” (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 34, fn. 2; see also N.T. Hill v. City of Fresno (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 977, 987.) The City’s adoption of the Resolution is a legislative action, as it is the formulation of a rule to be applied in all future cases.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES B HOOKER

Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN THE MATTER OF MARILYN J LEWIS

Notice not filed as required by Local Rule 10.02(I). The care plan was filed by Conservator on 6/16/20. The Court has reviewed the care plan, and it is complete. No appearance is required. The 3/30/21 previously scheduled hearing shall remain on calendar. The Clerk shall give notice. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

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

“There are, of course, multiple court-created exceptions to the general rule of privity. [Citation.] For example, exceptions to the privity requirement have been found in cases involving foodstuffs, drugs and pesticides, substances marketed with the knowledge the purchaser may not be the ultimate consumer of the product. [Citations.] The strict requirement of privity has also been excused when an inherently dangerous instrumentality causes harm to a buyer’s employee. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF SYLVIA MILLER

Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. The Clerk shall give notice. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF JAZZ HART

) - Proposed Accounting Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF BRIAN P. KOSTER

Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF PETER HALOWACK

Proposed order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. ________________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF PETER HALOWACK

Proposed order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. ________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF FREDRIC V LANE

Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

MATTER OF DIANA MEEKS

Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. The Clerk shall give notice. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible. A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

MATTER OF HUMAN POTENTIAL FOUNDATION

The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ESTATE OF JACK P. BLAKEMORE

(Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).) If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MATTER OF HUMAN POTENTIAL FOUNDATION

The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

EDEN DEVELOPMENT & CONSULTING INC VS MELISSA SANFORD ET AL

City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 (“under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.”).) The Court expects that counsel will have so advised Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WEI SI VS ALAN MENG TANG, ET AL.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. Dated this 22nd day of September 2020 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS VIRGINIA SUMUANO PEREZ, ET AL.

However, because special demurrers are not allowed in courts of limited jurisdiction the Court will not rule on the demurrer for uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) As to Defendants’ contention that the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action, the face page of the Complaint plainly states this is an action brought by a subrogated insurer under Cal. Insurance Code section 11580.2 and for property damages. Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HAGOP OGANIAN VS ZABEL OGANIAN

“This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendant filed a request seeking judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ claims to Defendant, as well as Defendant’s denial of those claims. “The court may take judicial notice of the filing and contents of a government claim, but not the truth of the claim.” (Gong v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANNA RIZHAVSKAYA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Supp. 2d 1023, 1031-33, applying California law, found that the economic loss rule did not prevent a claim for fraud based on concealment. The demurrer based on the economic loss rule is overruled. 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 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.