How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

9976-10000 of 10000 results

SETTLES VS FCA US LLC

"Prejudice" means a delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, increased burden of discovery, etc. (See also, Magpali v. Farmers Insurance Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) Here, Defendants have not identified any prejudice. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before February 7, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AKAHOSHI VS. SCHWEITZER

Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to the written discovery propounded by Defendant (ROA 64, 66, 68), and failed to comply with the Court’s multiple orders for Plaintiff to respond to discovery or pay monetary sanctions (ROA 79, 84, 89). After Defendant brought a motion “to enforce” the prior orders, the Court provided Plaintiff with another opportunity to comply with the prior discovery orders.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. RAINBOW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

In contrast, Montgomery’s medical records, including radiology materials and films, X-rays, MRI’s, and CT scans, diagnosis, prognosis, examination and treatment, are relevant, but discovery should be limited to only Montgomery’s strokes in May 2019 to the present. The nature, location and extent of Montgomery’s strokes may affect his ability to communicate and express himself or understand his duty to tell the truth.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

ESPINOZA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Around the same time, defendant also served written discovery. Devlin Decl., ¶ 18. A major sticking point in settlement was whether plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement for "genuine Honda parts" that they purchased after the sale of the vehicle. On October 1, 2018, plaintiffs served their own section 998 offer to settle for $31,986.52 and let the Court decide the aftermarket parts issue. Id. at ¶ 20. Defendant accepted the offer on October 8, 2018. Pltfs.' Ex. 6.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EUGENE SHAMPANSKY ET AL VS OCEANS 11 RV PARK LLC

This tactic would simply defeat the trial court's power to enforce its discovery orders…It follows that appellant cannot defeat respondents' motion for a terminating discovery sanction by filing a voluntary dismissal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

GUADALUPE M LOPEZ VS EL MONTE CITY SCHOOL DISTICT ET AL

Plaintiff’s responsive separate statement also contains citations to legal authority, which violates CRC Rule 3.1350. (See Page v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HPS MECHANICAL INC VS AYALA BORING INC

Some burden is inherent in all discovery. As discussed in Plaintiff's reply papers, there are methods by which documents can be placed into searchable formats for review. Travelers has not sufficiently shown such methods are infeasible or unduly expensive. Travelers also has not sufficiently demonstrated why it cannot obtain the requested information directly from the expert.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALINA PONDER VS PETER JOSE GONZALEZ JR., ET AL.

The Court must “balance the public need against the weight of the privacy right” and only serious invasions of privacy will bar discovery. (Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966.) There is not an egregious invasion of privacy every time there is a request for private information and courts must “place the burden on the party asserting a privacy interest to establish its extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion.” (Williams v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

LUCIC VS. YODER DEVELOPMENT

Additionally, as previously above, CRC 3.1350(c) states that a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication “must” contain and be supported by a separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of moving party’s motion. Plaintiff has not filed a separate statement in support of her motion. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The court declines to rule on Yoder’s objections.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

STEFAN BUNK V. BEN MOLNAR, ET AL.

Along with supplemental briefs, the parties would be required to also serve updated separate statements of the disputed discovery and responses, and reasons why as to each discovery interrogatory or request at issue an additional response should or should not be compelled.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

GISELLE MERSCHON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS ENTOURAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Defendant therefore seek an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Defendant’s motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b). Sanctions are mandatory. §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $511.25/motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COFFELT VS JENKINS

The discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is not overbroad in time or scope and Defendants have demonstrated a compelling need for the records. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied in light of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FLESCHMAN VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

Plaintiff does not allege a class action that would have tolled the statute, the date of discovery of an alleged defect, or facts that would support delayed discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANA AGUILAR VS ARIPEZ

Factual details about the basis for each affirmative defense can be explored in discovery. The affirmative defenses may also be challenged in the future by way of motion(s) for summary adjudication. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, January 31, 2020. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of January 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE CAMBRIDGE CARRIER LTD VS BABELLI MOTOR CAR COMPANY

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DISCOVERY DEADLINES by plaintiff The Cambridge Carrier LTD is DENIED. There is no amended notice nor proof of service in the court's records showing defendants were served with the advanced hearing date for these motions. Further, since the motion to continued is based on whether the motion to withdraw as counsel is granted, and it has not been granted, the motion to continue the trial date is also denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DELESA HUGHES VS MUFG UNION BANK NA

The case management order shall also include a provision whereby the discovery referee shall allocate discovery referee fees for all motions presented to the discovery referee. The parties shall submit an agreed-upon case management order to the court within 20 days of this ruling. The court refers the issue of a trial plan to the discovery referee for recommendation. The court refers Plaintiffs Cano, Kuck and Tengler's motions for protective order to the discovery referee.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FLESCHMAN VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

Plaintiff does not allege a class action that would have tolled the statute, the date of discovery of an alleged defect, or facts that would support delayed discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ROJAS VS PACIFIC COAST GRILL INC

Plaintiffs' original separate statement does not address Topics 8 or 11. The motion is granted as to Topic 1 as Steve Goldberg testified that he was not the person qualified to testify as to this topic. The motion is granted, assuming that Plaintiffs are referring to Topic 7 as set forth in Plaintiffs' separate statement. Steve Goldberg testified that he was not the person qualified to speak on sexual harassment training.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JANE ROE 1 VS DOE 1

In opposition Plaintiffs also cite, not to their separate statement, but directly to evidence to support their argument that Doe 50 had actual knowledge of the risk of sexual molestation on its premises. Even through Plaintiffs fail to cite to their separate statement, the court considers the evidence Plaintiffs directly cite to as well as Plaintiffs' separate statement and the evidence cited to therein.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KATZ VS SCRIPPS HEALTH

., opines Defendants breached the standard of care by "failing to order a CT scan to rule out a subdural hematoma" and that such failure was a direct cause of Plaintiff "sustaining greater injury to her brain and nervous system by delaying discovery and treatment of the subdural hematoma several weeks." (Amended Decl. Larson, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CONRAD GARCIA VS. HAYAT ISMAIL

No police report was made, leading to confusion for all parties, and requiring plaintiff to conduct discovery. (Motion, 3:5-6.) Plaintiff filed his original judicial council form complaint in November 19, 2018, naming Does 1-100, and stating that plaintiff was ignorant of the Doe defendants’ true names.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

OLSON V. WEDGE

CRC 3.1346 requires non-parties to be personally served with such discovery motions. The proof of service in the court's file demonstrates that non-party was served only by mail. Moving party's attorney is to submit a formal order that sets out verbatim the tentative ruling herein and complies with California Rule of Court 3.1312, and is thereafter to prepare, file and serve notice of order. This is the Court's tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

JAMES ESCUDERO VS CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES CALIFORNIA, LLC, A VIRGINIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1304 [in the case of a latent defect, a product is rendered unmerchantable, and the warranty of merchantability is breached, by the existence of the unseen defect, not by its subsequent discovery].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MICHAEL GROTTE V. NORMAL LIFE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

Class counsel is experienced with this type of litigation and has sufficient discovery and data to make an informed decision. The parties conclude that the Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $1,050,000 is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class. If a class has not been certified, it is appropriate to do so at the preliminary approval hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

TELETRACK NAVMAN US LTD, VS DEHAL TRUCKING, LLC., A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Verified responses without objections, fully responsive to the above-referenced discovery, due within 30 days of service of this order. Monetary sanctions of $720 are due within 30 days of service of this order. If there is a request for oral argument, then the monetary sanctions will be $1,020, based on a reasonable attorney fee rate of $300/hour. Court will sign the proposed orders submitted with these motions. Barbara A. Kronlund

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

  « first    1 ... 395 396 397 398 399 400

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.