Tentative Ruling. State of California et al. No. 12, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. for leave to file a 1st. amended complaint. run from service.
|
|
|
- Rosamond Pitts
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Tentative Ruling Re: Hunt et al. v. Superior Court Case State California et al. No. 01CECG03182 Hearing Date: September 12, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. (Dept. 98A) Moti: Plaintiffs moti complaint for leave to file a 1st amended Tentative Ruling: To grant 1aintiffs have 10 Plaintiffs moti for leave to file a 1St to file 1St will All days which complaint can be amended minute order. to be set in boldface type. Explanati: Allowing amended complaint. run from service amended complaint. The by time in clerk new allegatis in first amended complaint are filing policy furr strg judicial proposed disputed matters between parties can lawsuit. to validity (Nestle v. amended complaint Sports Co. v. & Brown, Cal. 647.) Santa Mica (1972) 6 amendments can 1St amended complaint will favoring liberal amendments be be is filed via (1989) Civ. Proc. Before Superior Court Prac. Guide: Pursuant to California Rules resolved Cal.3d 920, demurrer, moti that so all in 939.) Any 1st to etc. (Kittredge 1045, 1048 (TRG 2000) addressed ce 213 Cal.App.3d Trial strike, same Civil Court, rule 391, subd. (a) (a), The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will by The in which complaint can be will by All to in necessary. order order. Procedure secti , subd. court and service time clerk amended complaint are service minute order. be set clerk will boldface type. challenge and Weil 6:644- and no furr written order cstitute notice amended run Code is serve as from new allegatis in first Tentative Ruling Issued By: S J KANE (Judge s initials) 9/11/02 (Date)
2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIAI] COUNTY OF FRESNOI Law & Moti Tentative Rulings You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader loaded to be able ic to Adobe site where you can below will take you view versi download Clicking FREE Acrobat Reader. rulings. Please click refresh (reload) at top your screen to get most recent file THE CIVIL LAW AND MOTION JUDGE IS NOW POSTING TENTATIVE RULINGS AT: 12:00PM - 2:00PM - 3:00PM Tentative Rulings webpage at issued 12:00PM by Civil Law day before and Moti Judge hearing. before 12:00PM will be accessible this Court Tentative Rulings issued between 12:00PM and 2:00PM will be accessible this Court webpage at 2:00PM. All or Tentative Rulings will be posted this Court webpage by 3:00PM. Additially, all Tentative Rulings will be posted outside door to Department 98A by 3:00PM. parties wishing Those to all ( ) no to ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER. Department present oral argument must notify later than 4:00PM Court day prior and Moti hearing; orwise, NO ORAL or parties and Law
3 For those parties wishing to call-in for Tentative Ruling ( ), operator will answer those calls ly between 3:00PM and 4:00PM. If you wish to appear by telephe in Dept. 98A, even if you are local, you must appear through COURT CALL. You must call COURT CALL by 4:30 p.m. day preceding appearance at (310) or (888)88-COURT. There is a fee for using this service. The telephe number for Dept. 98A is (559) The tentative rulings may be obtained eir here, line, or by telephing court at To request oral argument for or departments, click link for telephe number informati: Department Directory September 12, 2002 September 11, 2002 September 10, 2002 September 6, 2002 September 5, 2002
4 Tentative Ruling Re: Hunt et a!. v. State California et al. Superior Court Case No. O1CECGO3 182 Hearing Date: September 12, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. (Dept. 98A) Moti: Plaintiffs moti for leave to file a 1st amended complaint Tentative Ruling: To grant Plaintiffs moti for leave to file a 1St amended complaint. Plaintiffs have 10 days to file 1st amended complaint. The time in which complaint can be amended will run from service by clerk minute order. All new allegatis in first amended complaint are to be set in boldface type. Explanati: Allowing filing proposed 1st amended complaint will furr strg judicial policy favoring liberal amendments so that all disputed matters between parties can be resolved in same lawsuit. (Nestle v. Santa Mica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) Any challenge to validity amendments can be addressed ce 1st amended complaint is filed via demurrer, moti to strike, etc. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 and Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG 2000) 6: ) Pursuant to California Rules Court, rule 391, subd. (a) and Code Civil Procedure secti , subd. (a), no furr written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as order court and service by clerk will cstitute notice order. The time in which complaint can be amended will run from service by clerk minute order. All new allegatis in first amended complaint are to be set in boldface type. Tentative Ruling S J KANE 9/11/02 Issued By: (Judge s initials) (Date)
5 PER COURT OF cal1forn1a, Coui F FRESNOI Law & Moti Tentative Rulings You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader loaded to be able view versi rulings. Clicking ic below will take you to Adobe site where you can download FREE Acrobat Reader. Adobe Please click refresh (reload) at top your screen to get most recent file THE CIVIL LAW AND MOTION JUDGE IS NOW POSTING TENTATIVE RULINGS AT: 12:00PM - 2:00PM - 3:00PM Tentative Rulings issued by Civil Law and Moti Judge before 12:00PM will be accessible this Court webpage at 12:00PM day before hearing. Tentative Rulings issued between 12:00PM and 2:00PM will be accessible this Court webpage at 2:00PM. All or Tentative Rulings will be posted this Court webpage by 3:00PM. Additially, all Tentative Rulings will be posted outside door to Department 98A by 3:00PM. Those parties wishing to present oral argument must notify all or parties and Law and Moti Department ( ) no later than 4:00PM Court day prior to hearing; orwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER.
6 For those parties wishing to call-in for Tentative Ruling ( ), operator will answer those calls ly between 3:00PM and 4:00PM. If you wish to appear by telephe in Dept. 98A, even if you are local, you must appear through COURT CALL. You must call COURT CALL by 4:30 p.m. day preceding appearance at (310) or (888)88-COURT. There is a fee for using this service. The telephe number for Dept. 98A is (559) The tentative rulings may be obtained eir here, line, or by telephing court at To request oral argument for or departments, click link for telephe number informati: Department DirectoryI September 12, 2002 September 11, 2002 September 10, 2002 September 6, 2002 September 5, 2002
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 14 P. MERCADO ISAAC GONZALEZ, JAMES CATHCART, and JULIAN CAMACHO,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 9/25/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX LUIS CANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Civil No. B187267 (Super. Ct. No.
If you have questions or comments, please contact Jim Schenkel at , or COUNTY OF GRENADINE
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
SAMPLE FORM F NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL
SAMPLE FORM F NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL - INSTRUCTIONS After filing your notice of appeal you have 10 days to tell the Superior Court what you want in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
JOE JARED 1 N. Emerald Dr. Orange, CA (1 - Defendant In Pro Per SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 PALLORIUM, INC., a Texas
Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District 156 Cal. App. 3d 1176 (1984)
NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION GROUP FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. COUNTY OF CALAVERAS et al., Defendants and Respondents; TEICHERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Real Party in Interest and Respondent
DEPARTMENT 34. Michael Paul Linfield. Telephone: (213)
DEPARTMENT 34 Judge: Judicial Assistant: Courtroom Assistant: Michael Paul Linfield Reyna Navarro Vanessa Galindo Telephone: (213) 633-0154 email: SMCdept34@lacourt.org I. JUSTICE AND JUDGING A. The basic
CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 09 HEARING DATE: 04/26/17
1. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC12-00247 CASE NAME: HARRY BARRETT VS. CASTLE PRINCIPLES HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED BY CASTLE PRINCIPLES LLC Unopposed granted. 2. TIME: 9:00 CASE#:
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 5/31/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ROSA JENSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, E067002 v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., et
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER/BOARD OF OFFICERS
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER/BOARD OF OFFICERS For use of this form, see AR 15-6; the propent agency is OTJAG. IF MORE SPACE IS REQUIRED IN FILLING OUT ANY PORTION OF THIS FORM, ATTACH
Demurrer & Motion to Strike (Judge Deborah C. Servino)
Demurrer & Motion to Strike (Judge Deborah C. Servino) DEMURRER The court sustains Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company s ( State Farm ) Demurrer to Plaintiffs Robert Berry and Kristy Velasco-Berry
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/31/12; pub. order 8/20/12 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CLAIRE LOUISE DIEPENBROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant v. KYLE
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS 2012 TABLE OF MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS-2012 Order No. SUBJECT Page 12-1 Filing of Notices
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: August 24,2016 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, a California
CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC LEGAL OPINION TO: FROM: PRESIDENT LARRY REID AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BARBARA J. PARKER CITY ATTORNEY DATE: MARCH 7, 2018 RE: CITY ATTORNEY S AUTHORITY
F 1 CLEFIA OF THE- COURT O SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT 305. Case No. CGC
F 1 upotior Court of California County of San Frncioo O 4.2017 CLEFIA OF THE- COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA Deputy Mark COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT 305 KELLY ELLIS, HOLLY PEASE, and KELLI WISURI,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHAPTER NINE APPELLATE DIVISION RULES...201
CHAPTER NINE APPELLATE DIVISION RULES...201 9.1 GENERAL PROVISION...201 (a) Assignment of Judges...201 (b) Appellate Jurisdiction...201 (c) Writ Jurisdiction...201 9.2 APPEALS...201 (a) Notice of Appeal...201
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 9/21/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT EMMA ESPARZA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KAWEAH DELTA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, F071761 (Super.
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 11/6/13 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS his opinion has been certified for publication in the Official Reports. It is being sent to assist the Court of Appeal in deciding whether to order
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 7/10/12 Obhi v. Banga CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 11/19/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, E061480 v. DIANA L. REESE,
Legislative Counsel Bureau Information Technology Services. NELIS Nevada Electronic Legislative Information System
Information Technology Services Nevada Electronic Legislative Information System Revised: February 28, 2011 Notes: Table of Contents For All Users... 5 Bills... 5 View a Bill... 6 View a Sponsor... 8 Committees...
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: January 6, 2017 10:00 a.m. HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM CALIFORNIA DISABILITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, a
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS AND NEED FOR EXPERTS Several people have recently pointed out to me that
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California 2 STEPAN A. HAYTAYAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 JEFFREY A. RICH Deputy Attorney General 4 State Bar No. 59 00 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 4/13/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MICHAEL J. SUMRALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MODERN ALLOYS,
Take actions on all legislation ASAP. At next meeting, the minutes are Approved or Amended
the are 1. Click on Minutes (you will be on the sheettab) 2. sheettab will appear 3. Select meeting body from the Minutes for the drop-down - Click on Search - Select Minutes by date 4. Click on Minutes
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 11/25/02 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SUSAN WANGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, F037422
6 of 11 DOCUMENTS. Guardado v. Superior Court B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT
Page 1 6 of 11 DOCUMENTS Guardado v. Superior Court B201147 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT 163 Cal. App. 4th 91; 77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 765
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME JUDGE May 24, 2013, 9:00 a.m. HON. MICHAEL KENNY DEPT. NO. CLERK 31 S. LEE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COALITION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Case No.: 34-2012-80001158
Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Opinions The Honorable Roger J. Traynor Collection 1-26-1967 Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court
Civil Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings DEPARTMENT 58 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If oral argument is desired, kindly refer to CRC 324(a)(1). Case Number: BC320763 Hearing Date: January 18, 2005 Dept: 58 CALENDAR: January
Tentative Rulings for January 27, 2017 Departments 402, 403, 501, 502, 503
Tentative Rulings for January 27, 2017 Departments 402, 403, 501, 502, 503 There are no tentative rulings for the following cases. The hearing will go forward on these matters. If a person is under a court
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 7/29/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GE LEE et al., F056107 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 05 CECG 03705) v. GEORGE
Centex Homes v. Superior Court (City of San Diego)
MICHAEL M. POLLAK SCOTT J. VIDA GIRARD FISHER DANIEL P. BARER JUDY L. McKELVEY LAWRENCE J. SHER HAMED AMIRI GHAEMMAGHAMI JUDY A. BARNWELL ANNAL. BIRENBAUM VICTORIA L. GUNTHER POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER ATTORNEYS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 8/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR TOUCHSTONE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, Petitioner, B241137 (Los Angeles County
i J ;o COURT JOZ I1 F F FREJ 0 C 98ADEPUTY RO1CECGO SJK. cm SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
1 RO1CECGO3 182. SJK. cm 2 3 4 5 6 FREJ 0 C I1 F F r: i J % L J) JOZ ;o COURT 98ADEPUTY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 9 10 CENTRAL DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 EDWAD W. HUNT, in his
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/20/2014 TIME: 10:25:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Raymond Cadei CLERK: D. Ahee REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT
GREENUP v. RODMAN Supreme Court of California, Cal.3d 822, 231 Cal.Rptr. 220, 726 P.2d 1295.
GREENUP v. RODMAN Supreme Court of California, 1986. 42 Cal.3d 822, 231 Cal.Rptr. 220, 726 P.2d 1295. Professor s Note: We discussed default judgment last semester, which might be referred to as a Civ
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: March 10, 2017 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM DR. JOEL MOSKOWITZ, an individual, Petitioner and Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 2/23/15 Cummins v. Lollar CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 6/7/04 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA In re Marriage of LYNN E. and ) TERRY GODDARD. ) ) ) LYNN E. JAKOBY, ) ) Respondent, ) ) S107154 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/5 B147332 TERRY GODDARD, ) ) County of
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B156171
Filed 5/16/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B156171 (Los Angeles County
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/25/14; pub. order 7/22/14 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WILLIAM JEFFERSON & CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. B239849 (Los Angeles County Super.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION
Filed 8/29/16; published by order of Supreme Court 11/30/16 (see end of opn.) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION U.S. FINANCIAL, L.P. as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff
by their first names for purposes of clarity. No disrespect is intended.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
Tentative Rulings for July 18, 2013 Departments 402, 403, 501, 502, 503
s for July 18, 2013 Departments 402, 403, 501, 502, 503 There are no tentative rulings for the following cases. The hearing will go forward on these matters. If a person is under a court order to appear,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 3/23/17; mod. and pub. order 5/25/17 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE FRIENDS OF OUTLET CREEK, v. Plaintiff and Appellant,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]
![IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]](/thumbs/82/87000101.jpg "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]")
Parts in blue print are instructions to user, not to be included in filed document unless so noted. [Parts and references in green font, if any, refer to juvenile proceedings. See Practice Note, this web
If you have questions or comments, please contact Jim Schenkel at , or COUNTY OF SANDSTONE
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION
0 0 Filed // (ordered published by Supreme Ct. //) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellate Division No. --AP-000 Plaintiff and Respondent,
If you have questions or comments, please contact Jim Schenkel at , or COUNTY OF LIMESTONE
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 12/4/15 Certified for Publication 12/22/15 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR KARLA DANETTE MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. No. B264143
Filed 2/26/19; Modified and Certified for Partial Publication on 3/20/19 (order attached)
Filed 2/26/19; Modified and Certified for Partial Publication on 3/20/19 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador) ---- IONE VALLEY LAND, AIR,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A146745
Filed 9/29/17 Rosemary Court Properties v. Walker CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
Santa Clara County v. Hayes Co.
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Opinions The Honorable Roger J. Traynor Collection 10-29-1954 Santa Clara County v. Hayes Co. Roger J. Traynor Follow
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MARC G. HYNES, ESQ., CA STATE BAR #049048 ATKINSON FARASYN, LLP 660 WEST DANA STREET P. O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94042 Tel.: (650) 967-6941 FAX: (650) 967-1395 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO J DATE/TIME: JUDGE: February 6,2015 HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEP. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM BRADLEY WINCHELL and KERMIT ALEXANDER, Petitioners,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 1/9/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE DEON RAY MOODY, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B226074
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 586 U. S. (2019) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman
C073185 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman TANYA MOMAN, Respondent, v. CALVIN MOMAN, Appellant. Appeal from the Superior
NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Law and Motion Calendar Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG Department 3 400 County Center, Redwood City Courtroom 2B Thursday,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 David V. Jafari, SBN: 0 JAFARI LAW GROUP, INC. 0 Vantis Drive, Suite 0 Aliso Viejo, California, Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -00 djafari@jafarilawgroup.com Attorney for Defendants DR. ALI TAVAKOLI-PARSA
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEA VE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California 2 STEPAN A. HAYTAYAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 ANTHONY R. HAKL, State Bar No. 197335 Deputy Attorney General 4 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O.
by defendant Fresno Unified School District for judgment on the pleadings
(19) Tentative Ruling Re: Davis v. Fresno Unified School District Court Case No. 12CECG03718 Hearing Date: May 11, 2016 (Department 502) Motion: by defendant Fresno Unified School District for judgment
The following is a TENTATIVE ruling for 6/23/2006, Department 69, the Honorable Jeffrey B. Barton presiding. Case Number GIC841845
The following is a TENTATIVE ruling for 6/23/2006, Department 69, the Honorable Jeffrey B. Barton presiding. Case Number GIC841845 TENTATIVE RULING Re: San Diego City Employees Retirement System v. San
OPINION BY: [*1] GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General (RODNEY O. LILYQUIST, Deputy Attorney General)
![OPINION BY: [*1] GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General (RODNEY O. LILYQUIST, Deputy Attorney General)](/thumbs/78/76947161.jpg "OPINION BY: [*1] GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General (RODNEY O. LILYQUIST, Deputy Attorney General)")
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA No. 81 704 64 Op. Atty Gen. Cal. 762 October 8, 1981 OPINION BY: [*1] GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General (RODNEY O. LILYQUIST, Deputy Attorney General) OPINION:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 5/29/03; pub. order 6/30/03 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ANTONE BOGHOS, Plaintiff and Respondent, H024481 (Santa Clara County Super.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 2/24/17 Suriya Systems v. Quadrant 4 System CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS.COM
Filed 5/24/12! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS.COM A C.C.P. SECTION 998 OFFER MUST CONTAIN A STATUTORILY MANDATED ACCEPTANCE PROVISION OR IT IS INVALID CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 11/23/16 Cannon & Nelms v. St. Andrews Development Corp. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
Courtroom Information for Department 47
Courtroom Information for Department 47 Judge: Randolph M. Hammock Judicial Assistant: Felipe ( Phil ) Rojas Courtroom Attendant: Gracie Hironaka Department: 47, Room 507, 5 th Floor, Stanley Mosk Courthouse
1 of 3 DOCUMENTS B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO Cal. App. LEXIS 630
Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS SHAOXING CITY MAOLONG WUZHONG DOWN PRODUCTS, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. KEEHN & ASSOCIATES, APC, et al., Defendants and Respondents. B256988 COURT OF APPEAL OF
THERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]
![THERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]](/thumbs/85/91669561.jpg "THERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]")
THERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]! JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS ! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL,
Westlaw. ~ Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Page I
Westlaw Not Reported in CaI.Rptr.3d, 2007 WL 2703022 (CaI.App. 2 Dist.) (Cite as: 2007 WL 2703022 (CaI.App. 2 Dist.» Page I ~ Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. California Rules of Court,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE
1 1 1 1 David Yerushalmi, Esq. (Cal. St. Bar No. ) AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER 1 West Chandler Heights Road, No. Chandler, Arizona - Tel: () -000; Fax: (01) 0-01 dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
1 1 1 OMAR FIGUEROA #0 San Francisco CA 1 Telephone: /-1 Facsimile: /- Attorney for Defendant CHRISTOPHER MORGANELLI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CASENOTE. Filed 7/23/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
CASENOTE LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS A PLAINTIFF S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONSTITUTES A FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MORE FAVORABLE JUDGMENT OR AWARD, THUS TRIGGERING A DEFENDANT S RIGHT TO EXPERT WITNESS
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CRAIG C. DANIEL () DAVID T. WEI (0) AXCEL LAW PARTNERS LLP Telephone 1-0-00 Facsimile 1-0-0 Email cdaniel@ax-law.com Attorneys for PLAINTIFF CORPORATE CONCEPTS SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Driver s Signature: Address: City, State, and Zip: Florida Driver License #: Traffic Citation Number: CALCULATION OF FINES
WALTON COUNTY TRAFFIC CITATION OPTION FORM-PART A YOU MUST SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR OPTIONS YOU CANNOT CHANGE YOUR SELECTION WITHOUT PENALTY AFTER YOU RETURN THIS FORM ALL FINE AMOUNTS MUST BE
NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Law and Motion Calendar Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG Department 3 400 County Center, Redwood City Courtroom 2B Tuesday,
Dated: Louise Lawyer Attorney for Plaintiff
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
1 of 1 DOCUMENT. *** This document is current through the 2016 Supplement *** (All 2015 legislation)
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT Deering's California Codes Annotated Copyright 2016 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. *** This document is current through
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CASENOTE: A party may not raise a triable issue of fact at summary judgment by relying on evidence that will not be admissible at trial. Therefore when a party fails to timely exchange expert designation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE. Plaintiff, Defendant.
0 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California PAUL STEIN Supervising Deputy Attorney General AARON JONES Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 000 San Francisco, CA 0-00 Telephone:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case Number S133687 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LINDA SHIRK, ) Court of Appeal ) Case No. D043697 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) SDSC No. GIC 818294 vs. ) ) VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL ) DISTRICT,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 6/15/10 Greer v. Safeway, Inc. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 199643) LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Date: Time: Dept: C53
ATTORNEY (Bar No. 10000 LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY 123Main, Suite 1 City, California 12345 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for Defendant, DDD SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
RICHARD N. SIEVING, ESQ. (SB #33634) JENNIFER L. SNODGRASS, ESQ. (SB #78) 2 THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C. Attorneys at Law 3 0 Howe Avenue, Suite 2N Sacramento, California 982 4 Telephone: (96) 444-3366
3 of 29 DOCUMENTS. RAYMOND GUZMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. No.
Page 1 3 of 29 DOCUMENTS RAYMOND GUZMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant Civ. No. 30336 Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER Senior Assistant Attorney General 3 STEPHEN P. ACQUISTO Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 MARK R. BECKINGTON,
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER]
![IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER]](/thumbs/75/71577705.jpg "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION [NUMBER]")
Parts in blue print are instructions to user, not to be included in filed document unless so noted. [Parts and references in green font, if any, refer to juvenile proceedings. See Practice Note, this web
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 8/16/07 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA LENIN FREUD PEREZ-TORRES, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S137346 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/3 B179327 STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., ) ) Los Angeles County Defendants
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 12/28/15 Certified for Publication 1/25/16 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JAN LEWIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, H041127 (Santa Clara County
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
Attorney for Self-Represented Plaintiff Self-Represented Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 1 _, Case No. Petitioner/Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER CONTINUING vs. HEARING
The Court notes that Defendant Stephaney Windsor's filed a joinder to Defendant DeMarco's demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint..
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER DATE: 07/26/2010 TIME: 12:55:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Ronald S. Prager CLERK: Lee Ryan REPORTERJERM: Not Reported BAILIFF/COURT
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B208404
Filed 9/8/09 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN JOSEPH LI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B208404 (Los Angeles County