How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

76-100 of 10000 results

CHRISTOPHER HAYES VS EVELYN SOSA, ET AL.

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and for monetary sanctions Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIMBERLY BATTAGLIA VS KRAIG LAMONT GOLDEN, MD, 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.” (Ibid.) Here, it is clear from the Golden’s other arguments that he understands what Plaintiff at least attempts to allege, and there is no true uncertainty. The demurrer is not properly sustained on the basis of uncertainty.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANTA ANA NEEDS EQUITY VS. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA

“Although there is no express provision allowing discovery in an administrative mandamus proceeding, section 1094.5, subdivision (e) has been interpreted to allow limited posthearing discovery provided the moving party shows that such discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to evidence admissible under section 1094.5.” (Pomona, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at 102.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

THUY TRANG THI NGUYEN ET AL VS MICHELLE D TAYLOR ET AL

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ELVIRA JERONIMO, ET AL. VS JEAN-PAUL CHIARI, ET AL.

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action,” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ...” (citation).” These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

JEONG GIJIN VS MARK HYON CHEL NOH , ET AL.

Plaintiff failed to file a memorandum of points and authorities or a separate statement of items in dispute. Defendant filed an opposition on 10/14/20, providing that Defendant served further responses on 7/1/20. Any reply to the opposition was due on 10/22/20. To date, the court has not received a reply. Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is premature.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DENISE MARIE CAGLE VS CALIBER HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed and granted. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, without objections, within ten days. (CCP § 2030.290(a),(b).) Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP § 2030.290(c).) Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,222.50.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

D'ANDRE HUMES, ET AL. VS MARCILLA HAYSLETT, ET AL.

Plaintiff served discovery on April 29, 2020. As of the date of the filing of the instant motion, Marcilla Hayslett failed to serve responses. Defendant in response denies ever receiving the discovery, but upon discovery of the motion via the court docket, Defendant obtained copies of the subject discovery and provided responses. Defendant requests the court not impose sanctions. Plaintiff provides no dispute as to the receipt of the responses.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SPENCER & MULALLY APC VS ROBERT S. MILMAN, 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 California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

SUPERIOR COURT VS. SAWOMIR FIEDZIUSZKODATE OCTOBER TIME AM LINE NUMBER

RFAs may be served at any time during the lawsuit with a few exceptions including: (1) the first 10 days after service of summons or defendant’s appearance in the action (whichever is first); and (2) cutoff on discovery before trial (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.20). RFAs may be served on any other party to the action (Code of Civil Procedure, 2033.010). Instead of responding to the RFAs, the party whom was served may promptly move for a protective order (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.080). B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

VICTOR MONTES , ET AL. VS PAMA IV PROPERTIES, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SHU WU SUE CHUEH ET AL VS CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC ET AL

If Plaintiffs needed discovery to obtain accurate information, Plaintiffs should have sought that discovery before the appraisers finalized their reports. Also, Plaintiffs did not identify specific inaccurate financial information. Plaintiffs argue Key did not consider the sale of the entire business as a going concern but instead used a liquidation value and as is market value, valued only the land and not other assets, and used an incorrect valuation date.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BARBARA GATLIN VS DELLITA JOHNSON ET AL

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HTL AUTOMOTIVE INC VS PACIFIC LIFT AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC

Separate Statement CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(5) requires a separate statement for motions to compel production of documents or tangible things at a deposition. Defendant did not supply such a separate statement. Therefore, the Court may deny this motion on this basis. Compel Documents A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARTIROS MANOUKIAN VS BELLA HAYKOFF ET AL

The discovery motions are moot per the submission of substantially compliant responses in opposition. (Douzoglou Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, Ex. A.) The Court finds that the imposition of sanctions for the motions would be unjust as to Plaintiff personally. (CCP §§ § 2031.300(c); 2030.290(c).) The record shows that Plaintiff’s former counsel never informed him about the outstanding discovery obligations. (See Manoukian Decl., ¶¶ 7-12.) Since he became aware of the discovery, Plaintiff diligently responded. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MORRIS GHADISHAH VS HECTOR CARRANZA TORRES, ET AL.

Leave to amend is denied (although Plaintiff may move to amend to add a claim for punitive damages should subsequent discovery reveal a basis for such claim). In this action, Plaintiff Morris Ghadishah alleges he was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was alleging driving his vehicle at 1 miles per hour on the 101 freeway when Defendant Hector Carranza Torres rear-ended his vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

FELIPE MARCIAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing. But… the defendant must indeed present evidence." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855 [italics in original].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD E. WEAVER

Status Conference re Discovery **************************** Subject to notice of this continued hearing, the Court intends to conduct a status conference re discovery. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

A demurrer for uncertainty 23 is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities 24 can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. 25 (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 616.) The seventh through tenth causes of action are not so bad 26 Defendants cannot respond to them. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the seventh through 27 tenth causes of action on the ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED. 28 // 1 B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL.

(“SinCo”) contended that it had sufficiently established 21 personal jurisdiction but, if there was doubt, SinCo wanted the opportunity to pursue 22 jurisdictional discovery. The court permitted SinCo to conduct discovery with regard to 23 jurisdiction and continued the motion. SinCo and Eng were given leave to file supplemental 24 briefs prior to the continued hearing. The supplemental briefs have been filed and the court will 25 now rule on the motion.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

Webcor does not explain the reference to or define DCA in the separate statement. However, the name is identified in the declaration of Daniel Chudnovsky. 1 Chudnovsky is an architect and has worked in architectural design and construction in 2 California for over 40 years.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

GONZALEZ VS WATERWAY PLASTICS

Tentative ruling for October 28, 2020 on Defendant's motion to strike the PAGA claims Defendant Waterway Plastics filed a motion to strike with respect to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The court hereby grants the motion for the following reasons. Defendant first argues that the court's 12/26...

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WOLCOTT VS STARBUCKS

Discovery processes are available to Defendant to ascertain the evidentiary facts supporting Plaintiff's claims. The motion to strike seeks to remove allegations seeking a recovery of attorney's fees under Civil Code section 1021.5. It is denied. See Snatchko v. Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 497 [" 'There is no requirement that the intent to seek attorney fees under section 1021.5 must be pleaded in the underlying action. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

MECHANICS BANK VS. ORION PACIF

The Court has considered all briefs and documents submitted in addition to the well-reasoned 5 page decision of Discovery Facilitator Groeneveld. The Court hereby adopts and incorporates in full the Discovery Facilitator’s decision. The Court further notes that Rider’s answer was indeed struck in large part for failing to respond to discovery, including requests for financial information.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

MCALLISTER V. LA TORTILLA FACTORY

It should consider factors such as 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 stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Judge

    Gary Nadler via Zoom

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

  « 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.