How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

9926-9950 of 10000 results

NILE PARK VS INDUSTRIAL LOCK AND SECURITY INC ET AL

Defendant is entitled to obtain discovery by means of a physical examination. Code Civil Procedure § 2032.020. When a plaintiff is suing for personal injury, the defendant can demand a physical examination without leave of court. Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220; Carpenter v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 258. Plaintiff has no valid objection to the demand for physical examination here.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

SULLIVAN MD VS SHARP HEALTHCARE

See the admissible portions of Separate Statement Issue 2, nos. 1- 4, 6 and 7; and Additional Fact nos. 18 - 119, 121 - 176, 186 and 187. Summary adjudication of this cause of action is denied on this basis as well.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES INC VS ENCINO EQUITY LLC

Separate Statement no. 2. The Lease also states "Tenant shall not be responsible for any increase in taxes caused solely by a change of ownership of the Premises during the Initial Term." Separate Statement no. 2. The phrase "Tenant shall not be responsible for any increase in taxes caused solely by a change of ownership of the Premises" is not ambiguous.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SOTO VS L I METAL SYSTEMS [E-FILE]

Extent of Discovery: The court incorporates by reference part 4D of the minutes for September 27, 2019. ROA 88. E. Experience and Views of Counsel: Counsel are experienced in this sort of case and recommend the settlement. The court incorporates by reference part 4E of the minutes for September 27, 2019. ROA 88. F. Presence of a governmental participant: Not a factor here. LWDA did nothing to assist these aggrieved workers. The LWDA, however, will receive $7,500.00.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CURTIS TYLER VS. ISS FACILITY SERVICES INC

The motion of Defendant ISS Facility Services, Inc. to bifurcate and stay discovery has been transferred to Department 54 for hearing on March 5, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are directed to check the tentative rulings for Department 54 for a tentative ruling on this motion. Motions to bifurcate issues for trial pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1048 are heard in Department 47. (Local Rule 1.05.) Discovery motions, including motions under Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARIO FAJARDO, ET AL. VS CLIVE REID, ET AL.

Plaintiff moved to compel Reid’s responses to discovery and monetary sanctions. 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.) 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

    Mar 02, 2020

JAMES DAVALOS VS. CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION & STATE FAIR

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, all statutory deadlines, including discovery and expert discovery, shall be governed by the new trial date. Defendant's motion also requests the Court continue the hearing on its pending motion for summary judgment. As the motion for summary judgment is set for hearing in another department, the Court will not rule on the request to continue that hearing at this time.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS INC ET AL VS TRINITY RIS

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2023.010(h) defines a misuse of the discovery process as “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.” Plaintiffs’ counsel, John R.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAVIT KARAPETYAN VS MACKENZIE BUSCH

Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

JOSE MANZO VS THOMAS ANDERSON

In addition, the Court may award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if the requested discovery is provided to the moving party after a motion is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) The Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $1,900.00 in sanctions, which consists of 4 hours of attorney time billed at $475.00 per hour.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

CURTIS TYLER VS. ISS FACILITY SERVICES INC

The motion of Defendant ISS Facility Services, Inc. to bifurcate and stay discovery has been transferred to Department 54 for hearing on March 6, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are directed to check the tentative rulings for Department 54 for a tentative ruling on this motion. Motions to bifurcate issues for trial pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1048 are heard in Department 47. (Local Rule 1.05.) Discovery motions, including motions under Code of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

APPLIED GREEN TECHNOLOGIES INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY INC

Separate Statement no. 5. The June application (accompanied by invoice no. 1437) stated that 729 LED bulbs were installed by May 22, 2014. Separate Statement no. 8. As a result, Plaintiff received a rebate from SDG&E in an amount reflecting installation of 729 LED bulbs. Separate Statement no. 9. Defendant maintains that, in fact, only 661 LED bulbs were installed based on an inspection conducted by Monica Wolfe (its employee). Separate Statement no. 10. However, this is disputed by Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SULLIVAN MD VS SHARP HEALTHCARE

See the admissible portions of Separate Statement Issue 2, nos. 1- 4, 6 and 7; and Additional Fact nos. 18 - 119, 121 - 176, 186 and 187. Summary adjudication of this cause of action is denied on this basis as well.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS GABRIELA PARRA, ET AL.

Sanctions Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In addition, Plaintiff argues that severing the action pending against Defendant Das would promote efficient litigation as the remaining defendants would only be allowed to engage in limited discovery instead of numerous defendants engaging in voluminous discovery as permitted in unlimited jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 6.) In opposition, Defendant Das argues that Plaintiff’s Motion to Sever should be stricken because it was filed in willful violation of the stay filed by Defendant Echegoyen. (Oppo. p. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

LISA KIRKES VS DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA PC ET AL

However, the Court does not extend the discovery and motions cut-off, as the motion demonstrates no need to do so. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendants’ motion to continue is granted. The final status conference and trial dates are advanced and vacated. The Court sets the following dates: Final Status Conference: September 18, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Trial: October 2, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the former trial date (September 4, 2020).

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GRAHAM R MORSE ET AL VS ABBAS SHEIKHLAR ET AL

The parties hope for an informal resolution, and to avoid unnecessary expenses, the parties have agreed to hold off on expert discovery until after the mediation takes place. Also, Plaintiffs’ counsel will be out of the country on a pre-paid family vacation on the current trial date. Defendants did not establish good cause for the trial continuance. The parties can participate in the mediation and still have 2.5 months to conduct expert discovery before the current trial date.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

DESIGN COLLECTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS BLUE AMBROSIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Any lingering uncertainties about this aspect of the guaranty can be resolved through discovery. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action is overruled. 3. Sixth Cause of Action In its sixth cause of action for promise without intent to perform, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made promises to pay for the garment goods without an intention to perform such promises. (FAC ¶ 35.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BIANCA ALEXIS FAIRCHILD VS JENNIFER LECHTER, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.

For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent. Provided that Counsel electronically files a corrected proposed before the hearing or bring a corrected proposed order to the hearing on this motion, the motion to be relieved as counsel will be granted. Otherwise, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FARAZ AHMAD, ET AL. VS STEVEN A. SOTO, ET AL.

“Parties must participate in an [Informal Discovery Conference] before a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an [Informal Discovery Conference.] (LA Superior Court Standing Order; April 16, 2018, ¶ 5 (emphasis in original).) A motion to compel further is the appropriate motion when the responding party provides a response to the propounded discovery.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

KYLE OLSEN VS VALMONT INDUSTRIES INC ET AL

Lindsay responded to these requests by objecting that the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product doctrine, and is not probative of any issue in this case. Furthermore, Lindsay contends that federal courts have routinely held that these so-called “clone discovery” requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, even where some issues overlap.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GRANT RAMOS VS JESUS OLVERA

misuse of the discovery process

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

RAFAEL CRUZ, ET AL. VS JUANITA LOMELI

Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) DISCUSSION On June 13, 2019, Plaintiffs served Defendant, inter alia, two Request for Admissions (Set One) – one request per Plaintiff. (Gravich Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

BERTA ALICIA SOLORIO VS CESAR UBALDO URIBE

Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond also constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this motion. The request for sanctions is granted against Plaintiff in the amount of $210.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $150.00 and the $60.00 filing fee.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

SULLIVAN MD VS SHARP HEALTHCARE

See the admissible portions of Separate Statement Issue 2, nos. 1- 4, 6 and 7; and Additional Fact nos. 18 - 119, 121 - 176, 186 and 187. Summary adjudication of this cause of action is denied on this basis as well.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  « first    1 ... 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.