How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

51-75 of 10000 results

ROSA A. GARCIA OSORIO, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Courts liberally construe good cause in favor of discovery where facts show the documents are necessary for trial preparation. Here, the categories of document requests include repairs to the subject vehicle, Defendant’s investigation in response to Plaintiffs’ repurchase request, its communications with Plaintiff, and warranty coverage of the repairs to Plaintiffs’ vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATIANA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS BACON HOUSING, INC., 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.” (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.) Beacon further argues that the damages alleged are uncertain. However, Beacon does not cite any legal authority to support its argument.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DRIVER VS ROBBINS

He is concerned that trial and discovery deadlines might yield real prejudice if they do not find new counsel right away. In a subsequent filing, counsel further provides that “the attorney-client relationship is beyond repair and is professionally unworkable.” While this Court finds that the legal basis for the motion has been met (see Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1134-1136), the motion cannot be granted at this time.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

RAHBARI V. CHONG, M.D.

Zimmermann, and Plaintiff filed no Separate Statement. Dr. Zimmermann did not in any way contradict Dr. Dubrow’s assessment. Instead, Plaintiff asks for a continuance of the hearing on the Motion pursuant to CCP 437c(h) and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Zimmermann in support of that request.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

PEOPLES’ SELF-HELP HOUSING CORPORATION VS SUPERIOR MILLWORK OF SB, INC.

Consequently, the Court will grant the motion to compel responses, without objection, and direct defendant to provide verified responses to the discovery to plaintiff on or before December 14, 2020. The Court will also grant plaintiff’s sanction request, and directs defendant to pay to plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $2,280.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MAX GLEASON VS JOHN DUNGAN ET AL

The Court understands that the settlement was entered into before discovery was conducted, and there is therefore no information before it regarding a claim for negligent entrustment of the co-owned vehicle by Michael Dungan to John Dungan. Still, the settlement amount is substantial. Further, when a good faith settlement motion is not contested, there is authority that supports the granting of a barebones motion accompanied by a declaration setting forth a brief background of the case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JACK CHAVEZ VS ANACAPA CONCRETE INC

In reply, plaintiff asserts that defendant has never suggested that it employs any non-exempt salespersons, such that discovery could have been attempted on their behalf, much less conducted over 18 months. Defendant's discovery response have consistently referred to non-exempt employees generally, and “laborers” specifically.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

VINCENT S SOLIS VS. LIMONEIRA COMPANY

The discovery responses served by Plaintiff on June 15, 2020 consisted of objections only. As such, no verification was required and the motion to compel a verification of the responses lacks merit. Appleton v. Sup.Ct. (Cook) (1988) 206 CA3d 632, 636 and Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657-658. The proper vehicle for the request is a motion to compel further responses, which was not filed in this case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

TRUJILLO VS. PLANNED PARENTHOOD

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR: PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MONETARY SANCTIONS, FILED BY DAWN WEINSTEIN NP , SOPHIA LEIBY, PLANNED * TENTATIVE RULING: * This motion is taken off calendar at the request of the moving party, so that the dispute can be taken up with the Discovery Facilitator. All parties are informed that effective January 1, 2021, this case is reassigned to Department 7 (Judge Baskin).

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

DOE VS WEAMER

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR FOR PRTCTV ORD GVRNG SCOPE OF DISCOVERY FILED BY JANE DOE * TENTATIVE RULING: * This motion is continued to December 11 so that it can be heard together multiple other discovery motions in the case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

DOE VS WEAMER

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY FILED BY EDWARD WEAMER * TENTATIVE RULING: * This motion is continued to December 11 so that it can be heard together multiple other discovery motions in the case.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

DOE VS WEAMER

The Court also notes that plaintiff’s papers (on this motion, as well as on the sanctions motion and the several discovery motions pending) do not comply with CRC 3.1110(f) and Local Rule 3.42 concerning tabbing of exhibits. Plaintiff is directed to review these rules and comply with them as to any future filings. Failure to do so may result in rejection or disregard of nonconforming papers. All parties are informed that effective January 1, 2021, this case is reassigned to Department 7 (Judge Baskin).

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

VINCENT DEROSA, ET AL. VS K9 LOFT INC., ET AL.

Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 [“These rules [of discovery] are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases”].) The Court also notes that defendants did not file any separate statement, as required by Cal. Rule of Court 3.1345(a)(5).

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALMA HERNANDEZ VS CITADEL PANDA EXPRESS, INCL, ET AL.

(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery. (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier. (3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

YORBA LINDA MCCORMACK BUSINESS PARK PARTNERSHIP VS. ASSOCIATION HEAD & NECK SURGEONS OF GREATER ORANGE COUNTY, INC.

“Even highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s ‘inalienable right of privacy’ provided by Calif. Const. Art. 1, § 1.” (Rutter Group, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Chapter 8C-5, Section 8:293, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

NINA MONTOYA VS OLUFEMI OGUNTOLU, ET AL.

“Though the discovery gives us some discomfort in terms of legal symmetry, it appears to us that once the court in a partition action has determined that true joint tenancy exists, it may not order reimbursement or contribution on account of differences in the amounts the parties have paid toward the initial acquisition of the property.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHARISSE STRODE, ET AL. VS FLOWER 77TH, LLC, ET AL.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. The Court orders Counsel to serve a copy of this order, as well as a copy of the Court’s order on Form MC-053, upon all parties including Plaintiff within ten (10) days. The Court orders Plaintiff’s counsel to file proof of service within twenty (20) days. Counsel shall remain counsel-of-record until BOTH of the Court’s orders are served and he files proof of service with the Court. Counsel shall provide notice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DONALD F. GAUBE VS. JEFFREY W. JOHNSON, ET AL

The delay in waiting till the eve of trial to request leave to amend will result in substantial prejudice to Defendants (Defendants’ MSA is currently pending; Defendants have not had an opportunity to conduct discovery on new cause of action for fraud or punitive damages as deadline for written discovery has already passed and trial is a month away); 4.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

AMBER BEASLEY, ET AL. VS CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL, CENTER, ET AL.

Ascher opines that, based on a review of the pleadings, Decedent’s medical records, Decedent’s death certificate, Amber Beasley’s deposition transcript, and Plaintiffs’ discovery responses, as well as her education, training, and experience, the care provided to Decedent by Dr. Nissen, the nurses, non-physician staff, and residents of CSMC was appropriate and complied with the standard of care. (Decl. of Nancy L. Ascher, M.D., ¶¶ 3-6.) Dr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RAYLEEN RAMIREZ, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Counsel will be ordered to attend a Informal Discovery Conference and this motion will be rescheduled to a date after the IDC.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CRYSEL VS. SAVINO

A continuance to conduct discovery should be granted on a credible suggestion that discovery is likely to produce additional evidence establishing California jurisdiction over the defendant. Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 481, 486-87. Plaintiffs have made such a showing here, and the court will grant a continuance of this hearing. Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition is due 14 days before the new hearing date, and any supplemental reply is due five court days before the new hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

PICHANARY CHEM ET AL VS OAKMONT MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC ET AL

Plaintiffs state that they have conducted extensive investigation and discovery to allow them to evaluate the case and come to a reasonable expectation of potential risk and results. Plaintiffs also present evidence of their counsel’s extensive experience in litigating PAGA and class action cases. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-20.) After considering all relevant factors of fairness, the court finds that the PAGA settlement set forth in the parties’ Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

JOHANNES ZUURVEEN ET AL VS LA COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICE

Defendant / Cross-Complainant County has established that the discovery was properly served on cross-defendant Zuurveen, and cross-defendant failed to respond to this discovery. Cross-defendant Zuurveen does not oppose this motion. Conclusion The County’s motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

JUAN PALMA ET AL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

Rosa has agreed to produce the various PMKs’ subject to discovery motions filed before the COVID-19 pandemic.” Rosa represents that it was his recollection that they were discussing the PMK’s that were requested by Vigil rather than by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and notes that only Vigil had filed a discovery motion before the COVID-19 pandemic. (Rosa Decl., ¶21.) The motion is denied. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is declined.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

MATTER OF KATHLEEN B.

The verified petition states: access to the birth and adoption records are necessary, because petitioners’ daughters and grandson are experiencing medical issues, which may be linked to David B.’s ancestors; the grandson has been diagnosed with a disease after the death of David B; and discovery of congenital illnesses of David B.’s ancestors may aid in the diagnosis and treatment of petitioner’s daughters and grandson.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 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.