How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

226-250 of 10000 results

UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION CO. V. RACHEL ELLIS

Defendant has failed to file and serve a separate statement disputing any of the material facts Plaintiff contends are undisputed, which alone justifies granting the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(b)(3); Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 744.) In addition, Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing the essential elements of its second cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS PLATINUM LUXURY MOTORS INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Court further ordered that counsel give notice of the scheduled hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. To date, no Proof of Service of the Order has been filed and there is no indication Defendant himself has been served with the moving papers that were originally served on counsel.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LEONARD TYRONE HIBBLER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS WILBUR NOBUO SATO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

AMEZCUA V. SEARSVALE ACQUISITION, L.L.C

K), there were and are discovery avenues for Plaintiff to obtain a verified discovery response that provided that information. Plaintiff has had more than ample time since the case was filed in November 2018 to pursue those avenues. Plaintiff’s refusal to appear for his own deposition until Defendant agreed to set dates for the later-noticed PMK depositions is also unwarranted and inappropriate.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

TYRICE RUSSELL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The Court imposes sanctions totaling $617.55 for all three motions against Plaintiff, Tyrice Russell, and his counsel of record, David Azizi and the Law Offices of David Azizi, jointly and severally, for failing to respond to authorized methods of discovery, which is discovery abuse. Cal Code Civil Procedure §2023.030. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

SANTIAGO GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL.

The Court reviewed counsel’s explanation for why he failed to respond to discovery. The Court is sympathetic but does not find the explanation to be a substantial justification for the failure to respond. Plaintiff request $210.00 per motion in sanctions, which account for .6 hours of drafting and preparing each motion at issue and a $60 filing fee. The Court also finds the requested fees unreasonably high given the duplicative and brief nature of the motions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

POWERS VS BIGGE CRANE AND RIGGING CO

The declaration states that Block is familiar with the discovery in this case and attaches various discovery requests and responses as exhibits. Block also discusses Power’s deposition and states that Power testified that he had insurance coverage at the time of the 8-22-17 accident. (Block Decl. ¶5.) Block also notes that he corresponded with Defendants’ prior counsel in January 2019 and discussed withdrawing the inadvertent admissions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

SYED M. HAMMAD RIZVI, ET AL. VS DILIGENT LENDING, LLC, ET AL.

With these discovery motions, the Discovery Act does not require that the parties meet and confer before filing the motion. Furthermore, there is no time limit to file such a motion. On June 30, 2020, Defendant served a set of discovery on Cuevas through email due to the Judicial Council’s Emergency Order pandemic guidelines regarding working from home. (See Declaration of Christopher Hook ¶¶ 2, Exhibit A.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JACINTA POOK VS FIVE POINTS PLAZA, LLC

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery requests, Defendants are entitled to verified responses without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production within twenty (20) days of notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HEE YOUNG BAI VS IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Second, the court has reviewed Petitioner’s separate statement pertaining to special interrogatories 8, 10 and 17-32 and Respondent’s responses. The responses to each special interrogatory either assert an objection or state “not applicable” based on an objection to a prior interrogatory. However, Respondent waived all objections to the interrogatories by failing to serve timely responses on Petitioner. (CCP § 20230.290(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

TELA TAL BURSHTAIN VS. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

While California also restricts discovery based on the amount of damages at issue in a case, it does so by classifying cases as limited or unlimited cases and restricting discovery in limited cases. This is an unlimited civil action and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to obtain the full scope of permissible discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Sanctions: GRANTED CCP 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. Plaintiff’s Counsel requests $2,068 in sanctions against Defendant and their counsel. Counsel’s hourly rate is $400 per hour. Counsel spent 3 hours drafting the motion and anticipates spending 2 hours to attend the hearing. Counsel also incurred a $68 filing fee.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

DON BURKHOLDER VS. MATTHEW D. GIRARDI...ET. AL.

Plaintiff also filed two discovery motions, which resulted in five hearings. Plaintiff’s counsel’s rate is $350/hr. in 2018 and increased to $400 in 2019. In opposition, defendants argue that the request for attorney’s fees is unreasonable. He contends that this case should have been filed in limited jurisdiction, where the costs would have been significantly less. Further, defendants argue, the amount is unreasonable in light of the amount in controversy and the amount of the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DAVID S. MURANSKY, ET AL. VS THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., ET AL.

Were investigation and discovery sufficient to allow counsel and the Court to act intelligently? Yes. Class Counsel represents that the parties have been actively engaged in litigating the actions for approximately three years, propounding written discovery, engaging in informal discovery, and exchanging documents. (Motion at 17:17-19.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL ALLEN DENNY VS TUUYEN NGUYEN, ET AL.

discussion Plaintiff moves this court for an order granting it to leave to file the First Amended Complaint on the grounds that during the course of discovery of pleadings filed by Defendants, new facts and information has been discovered such that Plaintiff desires to conform their pleading. The courts have a strong policy of allowing motions for leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

PAMELA BECKER ET AL. VS CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC ET AL.

Discovery Ortho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 357, 366 (stating, “[T]here is no basis for declaratory relief where only past wrongs are involved. Hence, where there is an accrued cause of action for an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act, declaratory relief may be denied.”).) The demurrer to the First cause of action for Declaratory Relief is sustained. 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

WYNNE VS WYNNE

The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the 'reasonable and good faith attempt' standard depends upon the circumstances and involves the history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors. (Stewart, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at 1016.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

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

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA ET AL VS BEVERLY HILLS CENTER FOR

Discussion Legal Authority Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.285, subdivision (a), “If electronically stored information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as attorney work product, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for the claim.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

ARMINE GASPARYAN VS MICHAELS

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel of record has been completely inactive in this matter, and that there is no declaration explaining Wolfson’s failure to participate in discovery or failure to appear at the TSC. Further, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s current counsel, Robert R. Shiri, fails to explain Plaintiff’s prior failures to participate in this action. Defendant asserts that if the dismissal is set aside, Defendant should be awarded sanctions against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WARDAK VS ARASHI

In addition, whether or not there are grounds to reopen discovery is not at issue on the present motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

STRATEGIC FUNDING SOURCE, INC. VS SUNSET POOLS CUSTOM DESIGN, INC., ET AL.

Multiple discovery motions are set for hearing on November 17, 18, 19, December 1, 2020, and March 4, 2021. Moving parties to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

IRVINE BAPTIST CHURCH V. IRVINE BAPTIST CHURCH REVIVAL COMMITTEE

Plaintiff properly served the discovery. (Lee Decls. at ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Defendants failed to serve timely responses, thereby waiving all objections. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a). Defendants represented at the Informal Discovery Conference, and in their brief, that they would provide responses by October 9, 2020. (ROA 179, 184.) However, according to Plaintiff’s 10/14/20 Status Report, no responses have been provided. (ROA 186.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

ARAM VAHDAT, ET AL. VS ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY

Specifically, in response to each Request for Admission, Respondent raised various objections and responded as follows, “After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter, the information known or readily available is insufficient and therefore responding party can neither admit nor deny at this stage of investigation and discovery in this matter. [C.C.P. §2033.220(c)(d)].”

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

HEE YOUNG BAI VS IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Second, the court has reviewed Petitioner’s separate statement pertaining to special interrogatories 8, 10 and 17-32 and Respondent’s responses. The responses to each special interrogatory either assert an objection or state “not applicable” based on an objection to a prior interrogatory. However, Respondent waived all objections to the interrogatories by failing to serve timely responses on Petitioner. (CCP § 20230.290(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.