How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

9951-9975 of 10000 results

KAYLA LYONS VS TOMMER BENHAM ET AL

Cross-Complainants also ask the Court to impose $3,100 in monetary sanctions against Cross-Defendant for his abuse of the discovery process.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

MARIA ELENA ALVAREZ VS WALMART INC

(Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶¶ 16-18.) But Defendant proffers no evidence that anyone actually inspected or cleaned this area before Plaintiff’s fall. The surveillance video does not support any argument that Defendant lacked constructive notice of the water because it does not show anyone from Walmart inspecting or cleaning the area between 11:01 p.m. (when the video starts) to approximately 11:07 p.m. (when Plaintiff fell). (Declaration of Rachel Davis, Exh. #1.)

  • 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 each served Defendant with Request for Admissions (Set One) – one request per Plaintiff. (Gravich Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

LAURA AN VS ASAD AYAZ, ET AL.

The Court of Appeal held that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were triable issues of fact as to whether the delayed discovery rule tolled the one-year statute of limitations under CCP § 340’s predecessor statute. (Id. at pg. 27.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s FAC states that she learned about the wrongful eviction on September 2016 and that the statute of limitations thus expired in September 2017.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

JACQUELINE DOUB, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ESTATE OF JOSEPH L.DOUB JR, AND IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY VS. LYFT INC

Notably, Opposing Parties indicate the deadline to designate experts was March 9, 2020, which provided an expert little more than a month to review two years of discovery and prepare opinions. The Court finds good cause for continuance based on the unanticipated withdrawal of Moving Party's experts the inability of Moving Party to retain a new expert for the current trial. However, the Court finds the request for a four-month continuance is longer than should be necessary.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LACEY C SCULLS ET AL VS TIFFANY LOWE ET AL

Superior Court (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 840, the court concluded that a trial court could not issue an order permitting the plaintiffs to conduct informal interviews of Defendant’s employees while inspecting Defendant’s premises, as no statute in the Discovery Act provided for such a method of discovery. Id. at 849. California courts have declined to permit discovery not authorized by the Legislature in the Discovery Act. Thus, in Edmiston v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

TIGRAN MARTIROSYAN ET AL VS ARON UNIS ET AL

LEGAL STANDARD The court has discretion to impose terminating sanction when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2030.290, subd. (c).) The court may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).) DISCUSSION In its order of November 19, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 20 days of notice of the order.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

SHONA MERL VS. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, all statutory deadlines, including discovery and expert discovery, shall be governed by the new trial date. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing.

  • 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

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING VS SANTA CLARITA

The “Golden Rule” on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is that “if [a fact] is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (Zimmerman, Rosenfeld, Gersh & Leeds LLP v. Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477, citing United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337.). Here, the District moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, as to all five causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JANE DOE VS CHRISTOPHER BROWN 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 prior to the hearing on this motion Counsel electronically file the supplemental declaration, proposed order, and corresponding proofs of service described above, the motion to be relieved as counsel will be granted.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FIESER VS BITCHIN INC [E-FILE]

The court resolved a discovery dispute, ROA 35-36, and believed the case was on schedule. However, owing to delays in discovery, the parties sought and received a continuance of the class certification motion. ROA 38-46. The motion was later filed. ROA 47-50. Defendants filed opposition. ROA 64-75.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

MARIO ROBERTO RAMOS VS PACIFIC CENTREX DATAVO, LLC

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

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

MULLIGAN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Further, “[w]hile ignorance of the existence of an injury or cause of action may delay the running of the statute of limitations until the date of discovery, the general rule in California has been that ignorance of the identity of the defendant is not essential to a claim and therefore will not toll the statute. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

GERALDINE LUISZER VS NATEE CHAIKUM METRA

In addition, 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 submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

SANSON V. SANSON

A special 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 California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Errors and confusion created by “the inept pleader” are to be forgiven if the pleading contains sufficient facts entitling plaintiff to relief. (Saunders v. Cariss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 905, 908.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

EDEN DEVELOPMENT & CONSULTING INC VS MELISSA SANFORD ET AL

The parties must be prepared to advise the court as to how much time is needed for discovery and an what an appropriate trial date should be. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PIAZZA V. THE IRVINE COMPANY APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.

Those separate statement facts assert there were no “similar” assaults.) Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

STAFFING NETWORK HOLDINGS, L.L.C. VS DWELL HOME, INC. ET AL.

Untimely and lacking an independent separate statement. CCP § 437c(b)(2), (3); See also, CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1229. Rulings on Evidence: Dwell makes two objections to the Declaration of John Anderson Declaration: No. 1 is overruled. No. 2 is sustained. Factual and Procedural Background: Intervenor Salvador was employed by Plaintiff Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. (“Staffing Network”), a temporary employment and staffing firm.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2020

PASEO NUEVO OWNER LLC VS ST. TROPEZ BOUTIQUE LLC

“The 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a); see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DAWN KONCSOL VS JILL RIVOLI ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Continue Trial and Discovery Cut-Off Date Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ERIK A HENNINGS VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC ET AL

Although they are consecutively numbered, the objections are not referenced by objection number in BMW’s response to the separate statement. Therefore, the court overrules the objections. 4. Facts: The court has taken the material facts from BMW’s separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of the motion (“BUF”) ##1-19 and Hennings’s responses thereto; and Hennings’s separate statement of undisputed material facts in opposition to the motion (“HUF”) ##1-26 and BMW’s responses thereto.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MERCEDES SANDOVAL VS CASEY J CRAWFORD ET AL

The meet and confer requirement is intended to force lawyers to reexamine their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter. Failure to conduct reasonable and good faith efforts to informally resolve the discovery dispute is a misuse of the discovery process (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (i)), which subjects the party or attorney to the imposition of monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

  « first    1 ... 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.