How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

26-50 of 10000 results

ADAM HOLT V. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, INC., ET AL.

However “a presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245, citing Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

DIHEN V. VOLVO USA, INC., ET AL.

In its preceding order, the Court explained that Plaintiff had failed to plead facts establishing the manner of discovery of the alleged concealment/omission, and her inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. The Court further found persuasive Volvo’s contention that the numerous defects alleged to have developed in the Vehicle during the warranty period seemingly should have put Plaintiff on notice of her claim well before she allegedly discovered it in 2019.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

RONALD PATRICK V. FERRARI NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Additionally, even as presented in the reply, Defendant’s accrual analysis remains underdeveloped and is not supported by analogous authority establishing other courts have held delayed discovery and accrual are impermissible as a matter of law under circumstances similar to those presented here.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

JAMES GRIGGS V. THE MOUNTAIN WINERY, ET AL.

But in this filing, Plaintiff identifies the material objected to as the tenth fact in Chateau’s separate statement. In other words, Plaintiff initially appears to be objecting—not to any particular item of evidence—but to the separate statement itself. The separate statement is not evidence. And so, to the extent Plaintiff’s objection is directed to the separate statement, it is not a cognizable objection. (See generally Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 8–9.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

JAMES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA

The Court expects that any lingering issues can be illuminated through discovery. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 [“demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures”].) On the ground that the 1AC is uncertain, the demurrer is overruled.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

WALSH VS. FRYS

Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801, including “the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the state of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction … to the proposed settlement.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ESTATE OF JAMES L LANGSTON, JR

Proposed Order Note: Memorandum of Petitioner Brian Kucharski in Opposition to Motions to Quash Discovery Motions filed 10-14-2020. ALDO RITZ BRIAN KUCHARSKI ROY N JOHNSTON CECIL W. RITZ REVOCABLE TRUST KELLY D SISNEROZ NATHAN PASTOR KELLY D SISNEROZ PETER S. STERN RACHEL DAWSON

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GREGORY DEL PAPA, ET AL. VS SHAHLA CHARM

In opposition, Defendant contends the affirmative defenses merely deny elements Plaintiffs must prove at trial, and that Defendant would waive the defenses if not pled, which discovery may ultimately support. Further, Defendant contends she is not required to pled facts in greater detail than those claimed in the complaint. Defendant argues the affirmative defenses sufficiently put Plaintiffs on notice of the potential defenses Defendant may raise.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

YUKI MARSDEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF HARUE J. MARSDEN ESTATE VS ERIC W. LESER O.D., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants will not suffer undue prejudice if the instant motion is granted as they will have to defend against and conduct discovery regarding the new claims in the later filed action. Additionally, there is currently no trial date pending. Further, Defendants will have the opportunity to challenge the claims in the new pleading by demurrer, etc.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

THOMAS GONZALES VS KIMBERLY OLSON LIND, ET AL.

If a party fails to comply with a discovery order, the Discovery Act provides clear remedies. CCP §2031.300(c) provides, “If a party then fails to obey the order compelling a response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction…” It is nonsensical to make ANOTHER order compelling responses, as such as order has already been issued.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

VANESSA OROZCO, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Analysis The County served its discovery responses on February 6, 2020. (Decls. Mallory, Jr., ¶ 3.) As of the motions’ September 21, 2020 filing, no responses had been received. (Id. at ¶ 5.) To the Court’s knowledge no responses were received subsequently. The motions to compel responses are granted. The motions to deem the requests for admission as admitted are also granted.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALEXANDER NABIL BASSILY, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Consequently, Plaintiffs have alleged a delayed discovery of the pertinent facts so as to benefit from the delayed discovery rule and toll the applicable statutes of limitations. Failure to State a Cause of Action Defendant demurs to the SAC on the ground that Plaintiffs’ concealment allegations are insufficient as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

LUZ MARIA BRISENO VS KEVIN RUMMEL

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ALEX JOHNSON, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

“A plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. The burden is on the plaintiff to show diligence, and conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.” McKelvey v. Boeing N. Am., 74 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

DONALD A. MEIER, ET AL. VS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In addition, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, courts strictly construe a demurrer for uncertainty “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

LEKTOI STEPHEN SAEONG VS BALDWIN, LLC, A KANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Saeong requests an opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery to establish the nature and extent of TIFEC’s contacts in California. In light of the arguments made by Saeong, the Court exercises its discretion to continue the hearing to allow for such discovery. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, TIFEC’s motion to quash service of summons is continued to a date to be set by the Clerk so that the parties may conduct jurisdictional discovery. TIFEC is ordered to give notice of this Order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NIKE USA INC VS 5860 WEST JEFFERSON LLC ET AL

MOTION TO CONTEST PRIVILEGE DETERMINATION If a party claims that particular documents previously produced in discovery were protected by privilege, they may serve notice of this claim on other parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.285, subd. (a).) If another party contests this claim, they may file a motion with the court contesting the claim within 30 days of receiving it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.285, subd. (d)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SALMON VS MURRAY PLUMBING AND HEATING

In addition, only as to any deposition of Tony Garcia, the Court extends the discovery cut-off to 12- 31-20. In all other respects the motion is denied. Analysis: The defendant has been attempting to locate and serve the witness, Mr. Garcia, since February of this year. After obtaining the witness’s last known address from the plaintiff through discovery, and after twice employing a private investigator, the defendant has been unable to do so.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ALEXANDRA GRANDE VS WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS PRECIOUS A. ALEXANDER

Discussion According to Plaintiff, Defendant had not provided verified responses to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff on October 15, 2019 as of the filing of the Motion. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RESNICK V. PARR !9-

Defendants’ Motions are timely because no discovery responses were ever served by Plaintiff. (See Greco Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) Defendants have provided evidence that its subject discovery requests were mail-served on Plaintiff and that no responses were provided. (See Greco Decl., ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. A.) 1. Plaintiff Ramie Resnick is ordered to serve written responses, without objections, to Defendants Susan Parr and Bill Parr’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days after the date of this order.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

SALINAS VS. BRASSTECH, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

All discovery in this action is STAYED pending the filing and service of the Second Amended Complaint, and the resolution of any challenges thereto. The case management conference is continued to January 22, 2021 at 9 AM. The parties are Ordered to file a joint status report not later than five court days before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ROBERT PIONTKOWSKI VS VEIOLIA ES INDUSTRIAL SERVICES INC ET

In response to discovery, plaintiff asserts that Fluor was obligated to properly install the coke drums but failed to so which was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant contends that plaintiff did not identify any specific documents to support his allegations against Fluor. In his deposition, plaintiff testified that he was not aware of any work that Fluor performed at the Chevron Refinery related to the Coke unit prior to the incident that caused his injury.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ANITA HERREMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Moreover, in Plaintiff’s discovery responses, she states the crack was visible. (UMF 11.) In determining whether a crack is a trivial defect, the size of the crack is not the sole factor considered. (Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 922, 927.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

BRENDAN THOMPSON VS ENFANTS RICHES DEPRIMES LLC ET AL

Plaintiff’s prior Separate Statement stated that it was undisputed that Plaintiff elected not to take any sick days while working for ERD; and Plaintiff’s current Separate Statement states that it is disputed that Plaintiff elected not to take any sick days while working for ERD. (Compare Sep. Statement (filed 9/11/20) with Sep. Statement (filed 10/2/20).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  « first    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.