Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-for-new-trial-44/6
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 21:23:50
Document Index: 764587783

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10511', '§ 1202', '§ 2033', '§ 1799', 'CASE NO: 19', '§ 437', '§ 437', '§ 3500', '§ 372']

RE: STATUS CONF RE: PET'N FOR APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS OF TRUSTEE
Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify statement in paragraph 4 “except for the disputed creditor or the creditor has file a claim or demanded payment.” 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify statement at paragraph 3 that real property was sold without sending a notice of proposed action. Did petitioner have consents? Or waivers of notice? PrC§ 10511, 10582, 10583, 10592 4. Accounting filed or waivers of accounting filed by all heirs 5.
RE: PET'N FOR INSTRUCTIONS RELATIVE TO THE TRUST DATED 03/27/1991
FILED ON 11/21/19 BY LLOYD K MASUKAWA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed Order PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Waivers of bond, or bond in the amount of $20,000 if 16.B below not granted 3. ...
ESTATE OF ELLIOT VINCENT INGRAM
RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FILED ON 06/02/20 BY VINCENT B. INGRAM PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved Proposed Order Submitted No Appearance Required ELLIOTT VINCENT INGRAM VINCENT B. INGRAM JANE K PENHALIGEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances BYPASS TRUST UNDER THE BARKER CHARLES BARKER III ARTHUR C. CHAMBERS CHRISTINE M O'CONNELL MICHAEL J.
ESTATE OF EDILBERTO B TALAVERA
Verified declaration by petitioner to clarify relationship of parties named on service list of notice who are not included in Section 8 of the Petition for Probate MARIA PAPPAS-RAJOTTE MARIA PAPPAS-RAJOTTE PETER CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS
PETITION OF GIOVAANA YALITZA VELAZQUEZ MOLINA
RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE FILED BY GIOVAANNA YALITZA VELAZQUEZ MOLINA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Giovaanna Velazquez Molina still must do the following: File a Proof of Publication of Order to Show Cause For Change of Name GIOVAANNA YALITZA VELAZQUEZ MO PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Drop. Note: Request for Dismissal of entire action 6-4-2020.
MATTER OF DAN M. SIKES LIVING TRUST
Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed by Atty. Joseph Fenton is set for hearing 10-27-2020. 2. Declaration of Antoinette Payne filed 7-29-20, in pro per. ANTOINETTE PAYNE JOSEPH F. FENTON CAMPBELL GREEN LLP JOSEPH F. FENTON MELVIN COSPER SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE THOMAS B REED, JR THE MELVIN & RUBY J COSPER REV FILED ON 04/24/19 BY ANTOINETTE PAYNE PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Notes: 1.
RE: PET’N FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, NO WILL, IAEA
It appears this was not done at the time the Petition for Probate was noticed. PrC§§ 1202, 8113 4. Provide Order for Probate Form DE-140 GUILLAUME BELLANGER SERGE ROGER PAUL BELLANGER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Proposed order ANNA M JONES MARIAN J ROGERS BRIDGEMAN THOMAS W.
LINDA TAYLOR VS CRAIG BOYD PAINTER
An OSC re: default judgment is scheduled to be heard contemporaneously with the hearing on this motion. Motion for Leave to Amend Relief Sought Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint to add claims against Kim Painter fka Kim Rast. Plaintiff also seeks an order continuing the OSC re: default judgment.
ABBAS KAMRAN SOURESRAFIL, ET AL. VS DENNIS ALONSO, ET AL.
The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The parties do not dispute that Defendant responded to the RFAs, albeit with boilerplate objections.
Defendants filed a motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to appear and testify at deposition, and for Plaintiff to produce responsive documents at deposition.
SHANE ROBERT DUCLOS V. ANIL CHANDULAR PANCHAL
Defendant’s motion for an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission as admitted is granted. Requests for admission nos. 1 through 16 are deemed admitted. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. The Court reduces the overall amount given that this motion is unopposed, and Defendant’s counsel therefore spent no time reviewing an opposition or preparing a reply brief.
JOSE LANDEROS CEJA, ET AL. VS WESTMED AMBULANCE, INC., ET AL.
Section 1799.108 states: Any person who has a certificate issued pursuant to this division from a certifying agency to provide prehospital emergency field care treatment at the scene of an emergency . . . shall be liable for civil damages only for acts or omissions performed in a grossly negligent manner or acts or omissions not performed in good faith. (Health & Safety Code, § 1799.108.) Gross negligence is “the want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.”
ADOLFO CASILLAS, AN INDIVIDUAL VS TIMM REESE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ADOLFO CASILLAS, Plaintiff(s), vs. TIMM REESE, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: 19STCV03283 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT NICHOLAS DOMINGUEZ Dept. 31 8:30 a.m. August 13, 2020 Plaintiff, Adolfo Casillas filed this action against Defendants, Timm Reese; Nicholas Dominguez, and Natali Lopez for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.
JANE DOE VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ET AL
A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(2).) “[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”
ESCOBEDO V. HERRERA
The motion of attorney Edwin Hong and The Simon Law Group, LLP, to be relieved as attorneys of record for the plaintiff, Alfredo Escobedo, is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) The request of plaintiff’s counsel to “stay of all proceedings pending Plaintiff’s acquisition of new counsel” (see Paragraph 7 of counsel’s declaration in support of the motion) is DENIED. The court will sign the proposed order lodged with the court, and the movants are ORDERED to serve the signed order forthwith.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.
STEED VS. KHALILI
Khalili contends that the motion is moot as Amended Responses were served prior to him being served with the instant motion, that Steed failed to sufficiently meet and confer prior to bringing the motion, and that sanctions are not warranted.
FALERIOS V. FALERIOS
On February 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default of the Defendant that was served via United States First-Class mail. The Court notes the Entry of Default was sent to a different address at Fort Eustice, Virginia.
Rice (1) Defendant’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Moving Party: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. Responding Party: Plaintiff Patricia Antuna Ruling: Defendant’s demurrer is overruled, the motion to strike denied. Defendant has 30 days to answer the complaint. Request for Judicial Notice Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted as to the existence of the documents, but not as to the truth of any matter asserted therein.
ON DECK CAPITAL, INC. VS CREATIVE IMAGE LABORATORY LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Lab, Afghan and Does 1-50 for: Breach of Contract Common Counts Common Counts Common Counts On December 3, 2019, Lab’s and Afghan’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference is set for March 16, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT EDUARD BABAYAN, Plaintiff(s), vs. ARTOUR PETROSIAN, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC728180 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. August 13, 2020 Background Plaintiff, Eduard Babayan filed this action against Defendant, Artour Petrosian for battery, assault, IIED, negligence, and reckless disregard for safety of others.
Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Prob. Code, §§ 3500, 3600, et seq; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) Plaintiff has agreed to settle her claims against defendant for $750,000. If approved, $1,509.75 will be paid to the California Victim Compensation Board, $3,740.25 will go towards litigation costs, and $262,500 in attorney fees will be paid to plaintiff’s counsel.
ANDREA PASILLAS, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOEL PASILLAS VS CITY OF GLENDALE, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, AlderLaw, PC and OshaganLaw, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1362. Also on July 2, 2020, the Court scheduled hearing date on the motion to be relieved as counsel to August 13, 2020. Trial is scheduled for December 30, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff’s counsel, AlderLaw, PC and OshaganLaw (“Counsel”), asks the Court to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff.
“California law reflects a strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a relatively quick and inexpensive method for resolving disputes. [Citation.] To further that policy, [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1281.2 requires a trial court to enforce a written arbitration agreement unless one of three limited exceptions applies. [Citation.]
GRYTSENKO VS. DOKY, INC.
Rather, Plaintiff has submitted entries for attorney and paralegal “time spent on this case” (Motion page 4:22); that is, the entire case, not just the first claim. The Court notes that as of 8-12-2019 (see Minute Order for 8-12-2019, ROA 256) that the “Parties stipulate that on 12/22/2017, Defendants made a partial payment in the amount of $29,315.00 to Plaintiff as on offset.”