Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/memorandum-of-points-and-authorities-346
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 01:01:27
Document Index: 785125759

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 436', '§ 1013', '§ 452', '§ 452', '§ 512']

What is a Memorandum of Points and Authorities?
Whenever a motion is filed with the court it must be accompanied by a supporting memorandum of points and authorities. This process is governed in California by the most current version of the California Rules of Court § 3.1113.
“A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (CRC 3.1113(a).)
“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Id.)
The rule goes on to explain the format citations should be in and also the acceptable lengths the memorandum can be. “Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” (Id.) If the memorandum is for summary judgment or summary adjudication then it can be up to a maximum of 20 pages. (Id.) The caption page, notice of motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, table of contents, table of authorities, and proof of service do not count toward the page total of a memorandum. (Id.)
Parties are allowed to ask the court ex parte for permission to file a longer memorandum so long as they notify the other parties in writing and explain to the court why the argument could not be made in a standard memorandum. (Id.)
California Rules of Court § 3.1114 lists the civil motions, applications, and petitions that do not require a memorandum such as motion to be relieved as counsel, motion filed in a small claims case, petition for change of name or gender, etc. (CRC 3.1114.) However, “if it would further the interests of justice” a party can file a motion or the court can order one submitted but it must still comply with the guidelines in CRC § 3.1113. (Id.)
Useful Rulings on Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Gouche v Perez Defendant Ramiro Perez’s Demurrer is CONTINUED to March 19, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94. I. Background On June 12, 2018, Plaintiff Victor Gouche (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil rights action against Defendant Ramiro Perez (“Defendant”). On September 12, 2018, Defendant filed a Declaration of Meet and Confer (the “Declaration”). A month later, Defendant filed a Notice of Dem...
..with the court. However, if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California . . . .” Even though there is a proof of service showing that the Declaration was served on Plaintiff, there is no proof of service of the same on the Demurr...
Haas et al. v. ZLZR Corporation et al.
Motions: Demurrer and motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling: To strike the demurrer and motion to strike sua sponte pursuant to CCP § 436 with leave to re-file on or before 30 days of notice of the ruling. See infra. Notice runs from the date that the Minute Order is mailed plus 5 days for service via mailed. See CCP § 1013. Explanation: On October 13, 2017, Plaintiffs fil...
..alifornia Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Gorgei) (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281, 218 CR 817, 821 (disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407, 97 fn.11)] Therefore, the motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint will be granted. On December 18, 2017, Defendants filed a demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint....
North Central District Forward financing, LLC, Petitioner, v. cams company packaging supplies, inc. dba cams company packaging supplies, et al., Respondents. Case No.: 19BBCP00402 Hearing Date: January 31, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: petition to confirm arbitration award BACKGROUND On October 11, 2019, Petitioner Forward Financing, LLC filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Re...
..whereby the parties agreed Petitioner would purchase $58,400.00 worth of future receivables for $40,000.00 from Respondents, but that Respondents failed to pay Petitioner the daily rate of $486.67 until the $58,400.00 was paid. The matter went to arbitration on September 20, 2019 in Suffolk County, Massachusetts before Arbitrator John Jordan. The Award of Arbitrator was made that same day, which...
Green v Signature MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF Calendar: Add on Case: EC063893 Hearing Date: 12/14/18 Action Filed: 6/12/15 Trial: Not set MP: Plaintiff Gabriel Green RP: None ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff Gabriel Green suffered from severe anxiety and sought inpatient psychiatric treatment from UCLA. Since there were no beds available, Plaintiff requested transfer to Aurora L...
..sible. Plaintiff was then subjected to a strip search and a forced drug test. Further, Plaintiff was deprived of his cell phone and the medications prescribed to him. Plaintiff alleges this conduct was negligent, dependent adult neglect and abuse, and a violation of numerous statutes. The SAC alleges causes of action for: (1) Hospital Negligence; (2) Professional Negligence; (3) Negligent Reten...
VAN DE HEUVEL v. HORN
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a document entitled “NOTICE OF MOTION AND LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF IN SUPPORT”. (Emphasis in original.) The document commences with notice to the defendants of the date and time of the hearing and that the hearing will be in Department Ten. The notice then commences to assert various fac...
..equate service on the defendants is an independent reason to deny the motion for lack of proof of service. In addition, the plaintiff has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements to have a motion for leave to amend heard. “When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys (Monastero v. Los Angeles Tr...
HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.
TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 6 Date: 9/27/19 Case No: EC 063856 Trial Date: None Set Case Name: Williams, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. MOTION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION MOTION TO CORRECT ERROR MOTION FOR STAY Moving Party: Plaintiff Theresa Williams Responding Party: Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (No Opposition) RELIEF REQUESTED: Determine jurisdiction Correc...
..eed of trust encumbered only 75 % of the property, with 25% undivided title interest remaining to plaintiff Williams Jr. by grant deed. The file shows that these three motions were originally heard on June 28, 2019. The minute order indicates that plaintiff Theresa Williams filed a challenge for cause against the Honorable Ralph C. Hofer along with an application for continuance. On the court’s o...
Recent Rulings on Memorandum of Points and Authorities
1-25 of 2271 results
Civil Case Management Conference (60)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (95)
Discovery Hearing (15)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (103)
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) (16)
Colleen Sterne (51)
David R Chaffee (17)
Elaine Lu Or Yolanda Orozco (12)
Frederick C. Shaller (18)
Jacqueline M. Stern (58)
James L. Stoelker (13)
James T. Latting (153)
Martha K. Gooding (29)
Michael J. Raphael (57)
Peter Wilson (17)
Randa Trapp (33)
Randall J. Sherman (13)
Rebecca Susan Riley (16)
Robert C. Hight (17)
Ronald F. Frazier (43)
Theodore C. Zayner (25)
Theodore R. Howard (21)
Thomas Anderle (54)
Timothy Taylor (80)
Vincent O'Neill (14)
Walter Schwarm (33)
Wendy Chang Or Jon R. Takasugi (19)
Contra Costa County, CA (57)
Los Angeles County, CA (669)
Riverside County, CA (178)
Sacramento County, CA (115)
San Diego County, CA (399)
San Francisco County, CA (67)
Santa Barbara County, CA (205)
Santa Clara County, CA (92)
THEODORE MERCURE VS LEONARD GROVE
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) (Emphasis added.) While Petitioner does cite California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, subdivision (d) for the timing of his motion and case law for the reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees sought, he does not cite any authority that demonstrates the Court can award attorney’s fees as requested. Thus, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a supplemental brief addressing these deficiencies.
CRC 3.1113(b). “Issues not supported by citation to legal authority are subject to forfeiture.” People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 18 Cal.App.5th 801, 831 n10 (2017) (applying similar CRC 8.204(a)(1)(B) applicable to appeals). Also, when a party demurs to the entire complaint, if the petition states any cause of action, the court will overrule the demurrer. Warren v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36 (1971). Weger/Dagg has not demurred to the fifth and sixth causes of action in the CC.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [memorandum in support of motion must contain “arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced”].) Therefore, in all other respects, Defendants’ motions to strike are DENIED. Defendants shall file and serve their answers to the Third Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)
Code § 452 and CRC rules 3.1306(c) and 3.1113(1). Demurrer Interference with Expected Inheritance “…[W]here a probate remedy is available, it must be pursued. In addition, the only plaintiffs who will be able to utilize the tort are those who lack an adequate probate remedy because of the interference of another. In a sense, the interfering tortfeasor has “obtained the benefit of the testamentary intent rule by committing a tort against a third party…” (Beckwith v.
DAGHIGHIAN VS. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
CRC 3.1113(a). Based upon these grounds, the court sustains the unopposed demurrer. Although the demurrer is unopposed, the court finds that Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to cure the defects in the operative complaint that were raised by Defendant in the demurrer. Defendant to give notice. Future Hearings: MSC: 3/26/21 Jury Trial: 5/24/21
(CRC 3.1113(l)). Judicial notice may be taken of¿“(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code § 452.)¿ Plaintiff requests judicial notice of an Order from Department 32 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, dated February 21, 2020, titled Lunine v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. BC713294. The Court GRANTS this request.
(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a).) Thus, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer as to the third and twenty-first causes of action.
Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a) “[t]he court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion . . . is not meritorious and cause for its denial.” Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Moving Defendant’s motion to set aside/vacate default and default judgment. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
(CRC 3.1113(d).) Although the Court has discretion to ignore papers that are over the limit, the Court will consider the opposition in making its ruling. Analysis: In its motion for summary judgment ruling, the Court found that Plaintiff met her initial burden and established a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Plaintiff alleged that she was terminated because of a disability and because she had filed for workers’ compensation.
The moving brief clearly satisfied CRC Rule 3.1113(b). (Cf. Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [half-page memorandum did not comply with Rule 3.1113(b) and was a basis to deny the motion].) Defendant next argues that “the Complaint does not include any demand for specific performance” and that “even if Plaintiff had hypothetically pleaded for specific performance, it would still not be enforceable because the Property is primarily an investment asset.”
FINANCIAL PACIFIC LEASHING, INC., A WASHINGTON CORP. V. GURPREETDHALIWAL
(California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113.) Explanation: Plaintiff satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements to obtain writs of possession, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, et seq. Plaintiff also meets its burden of showing a likelihood of success, or the probable validity of the claim to possession of the property. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 512.060, subd. (a)(1).)
Indeed, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d) specifically provides that the “page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service.” Thus, the Court finds Respondent did not violate Rule 3.1113. B. Request for Production Nos. 12 & 13 The Court first examines Requests for Production Nos. 12 and 13.
(CRC Rule 3.1113(a); Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862-863 [argument waived if not supported by reasoned argument and citation to authorities]; Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [same].) Presumably, Plaintiffs mean to argue that alleged non-payment of profits shows that Defendants have misappropriated funds or otherwise mismanaged the business. In the moving papers, Plaintiffs cite no evidence to support such claim.
In addition, California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1113(b) states that a memorandum of points and authorities “must contain . . . a concise statement of the law. . . and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” Alvarez’s references to CRC Rules 3.1342, 3.723, 3.727 and 3.728 provide no basis for the filing of a motion to dismiss, and merely discuss the matters to be addressed by the court during a Case Management Conference.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d), (e).) Therefore, the Court does not consider pages 16-22. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants request the Court to take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s verified petition in Mitra Rashti v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BS169304; (2) the judgment in Mitra Rashti v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BS169304; and (3) a notice designating the record in the Court of Appeal Mitra Rashti v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B302934. Plaintiff does not oppose.
(California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a).) Second COA (Business and Professions Code section 17200): “The UCL [Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.] defines unfair competition as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” [Citation.]” (In re Tobacco Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311.)
Moreover, CRC Rule 3.1113 provides that a motion must include a memorandum in support of motion. It states in part that “[a] party filing a motion... must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (CRC Rule 3.1113(a).)
(CRC 3.1113(l)). Judicial notice may be taken of “(b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.
(CRC Rule 3.1113(l).) Defendant has not requested the court take judicial notice of the Successor in Interest Declaration on file with the court, or provided grounds for the court to accept the truth of its contents. Accordingly, the Declaration and facts contained within it are not considered as extraneous matter not part of the instant motion to strike portions of the FAC.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 91 next last »