Array
(
)
Search by Keyword:
Start Date:
End Date:
Tip: Wrap text in quotation marks when searching for phrases (e.g. "motion to dismiss").

786 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Contra Costa x
Judge: Treat, Charles S x 
Array
(
)
SELECT * FROM wp_posts WHERE (post_type = 'attachment') AND ID IN (SELECT object_id FROM wp_term_relationships WHERE term_taxonomy_id IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_term_taxonomy WHERE taxonomy = 'wpmf-category' AND parent IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_terms WHERE term_id = 231)) AND term_taxonomy_id IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_term_taxonomy WHERE taxonomy = 'wpmf-category' AND term_taxonomy_id = 326)) AND (true) AND (true) ORDER BY post_title DESC LIMIT 450,25
Array
(
)
2019.5.10 Motion to Compel Responses 540
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.5.10
Excerpt: ... also sought orders compelling responses to interrogatories and document requests. That part of these motions was put over to the present date, with an invitation for each moving defendant to file and serve a supplemental statement explaining which (if any) of these other discovery responses are still genuinely needed, in light of the order deeming matters admitted. Incense Specialties has filed the supplemental statement invited in the Court's r...
2019.5.10 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel 319
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.5.10
Excerpt: ... participate. As was discussed at the recent CMC, although the complaint identifies the Estate as the plaintiff, there is neither the identification of any actual person who is the representative of the Estate, nor any probate order designating anyone as such representative. There also is no allegation of any survivors purporting to bring a wrongful death action on their own behalfs. The Court gathers that the person(s) who arranged for counsel t...
2019.5.10 Motion for Terminating, Issue, or Evidentiary Sanctions 519
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.5.10
Excerpt: ...sed the car in 2013, and (according to his suit) he encountered a long train of significant problems with it. He demanded repurchase in February 2016, and filed this suit in March 2016. More than two years later, in July 2018, defendant served a notice of inspection of the vehicle. After some initial scheduling discussion, plaintiff's counsel informed defendant's counsel in September 2018 that plaintiff had sold the car and thus couldn't produce ...
2019.5.10 Motion for Summary Judgment 350
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.5.10
Excerpt: ...cation that (1) Plaintiff does not have a claim for dangerous condition of public property, or (2) BART has immunity. The Court finds that BART has not shifted its burden on several issues, and on the remaining issues there are triable issues of material fact. Indeed, while BART presents more or less the same substance in a variety of different wrapping papers, it's the same substance under different section headings. Dangerous Condition A claim ...
2019.4.26 Petition for Relief from Claims Presentation Requirement 442
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.4.26
Excerpt: ... v. County of L.A. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 946, 950‐51.) Facts On March 26, 2018 a journalist made a California Public Records Act to the Contra Costa Community College District for records regarding one of the District's trustees, Timothy Farley. The reason for the request was apparently that the reporter believed a harassment complaint had been made against Farley concerning an incident that had occurred several years earlier. On April 2, 2018 ...
2019.4.26 Motion to Vacate Petitioners' Dismissal without Prejudice 610
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.4.26
Excerpt: ... date of February 8, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. On the preceding afternoon the Court posted its tentative ruling denying the petition to compel on multiple grounds (including the res judicata effect of a prior unsuccessful petition). Petitioners did not contest the tentative ruling. Instead, they filed a voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice, which was stamped filed as of 8:17 a.m. on the morning of the 8th, prior to the 9:00 hearing time. ...
2019.4.26 Demurrer, Motion to Strike 772
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.4.26
Excerpt: ...ntively, as with the IIED tort, the Court cannot see that plaintiff is alleging anything sufficient here to rise to the level of outrageousness that would be required to state a viable claim for punitive damages. As an additional point, defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot get punitive damages because Defendant is a corporate entity and the allegations are insufficient as to it. “When the defendant is a corporation, ‘[a]n award of punitive ...
2019.4.26 Demurrer 039
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.4.26
Excerpt: ...this defendant. The remainder of the complaint makes it clear that plaintiffs were much more conversant than this defendant with the alleged defects in the premises. Plaintiffs propose to amend to assert what amounts to a promissory fraud claim based on defendant's recent alleged assurances of repairs. That's more a wholly new claim than an amendment of the old one, but the Court will allow it to be asserted. The Court points out that the require...
2019.4.19 Demurrer 192
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.4.19
Excerpt: ...s demurrable because it is not an independent cause of action. As for elder abuse: Both sides brief this issue as though it were being presented for the first time. In fact, the Court (Department 15) previously undertook a lengthy and detailed analysis of the requirements for pleading an elder abuse claim based on negligent caretaking, and concluded that the original complaint did not allege a sufficient claim. That analysis included consideratio...
2019.4.12 Motion for Consolidation 259
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.4.12
Excerpt: ...h evidentiary matters. There is very little actual evidence presented on this motion, and no testimony at all from either side. Robinson complains that the “statement of relevant facts” found in LBG's opposition brief is not evidence but only assertions of counsel, which is quite true. But Robinson's own motion papers are likewise unsupported by anything like a declaration or other detailed evidence. His opening brief supports its factual ass...
2019.3.29 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 580
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.29
Excerpt: ... Court rules on procedural and evidentiary issues as follows.  Summary Adjudication. The District purports to seek summary adjudication as alternative relief. However, the District's papers are not organized with reference to individual causes of action as is required when seeking such relief. (CRC 3.1350(b) and (d).) Further, the District's attempt to seek summary adjudication is undercut by the District's own argument that the Complaint's th...
2019.3.22 Motioon for Reconsideration 350
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.22
Excerpt: ...her method such as e‐mail is agreed). Defendant's demurrer is put back on calendar for April 19, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' opposition is due on April 5. Defendant's reply, if any, is due on April 12. Plaintiffs file what they caption as a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. Considered as such, it cannot be granted because of the intervening entry of final judgment. E.g., Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural Facade...
2019.3.22 Motion for Summary Judgment 092
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.22
Excerpt: ...y incorrect. The notice of motion does not state each issue on which summary adjudication was sought as required by CRC 3.1350(b). In addition, the issues identified in the separate statement do not appear to be issues that are appropriate for summary adjudication. (CCP 437c(f)(1) [“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or ...
2019.3.22 Motion for Appointment of Expert 709
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.22
Excerpt: ... then threw out on anti‐SLAPP grounds. Defendant Shane, seeking the best way to resolve this impasse, proposes that the Court should appoint its own expert surveyor under Evidence Code § 730. Each side has already obtained a professional boundary survey, but the two surveys reach different results. Shane posits this as a “tie‐breaker” survey. The problem is that a neutral survey is not certain to resolve anything. Indeed, frankly, it is ...
2019.3.22 Demurrer 812
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.22
Excerpt: ...ion, and injunctive relief. There are a number of important flaws in these causes of action, both individually and collectively – starting with plaintiff's entire disregard for the rules of pleading claims against public entities, and for the statutory limits on the availability of such claims. The Court need not address each cause of action or each defect separately, however, for there is a single dispositive principle that shows not only that...
2019.3.22 Demurrer 572
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.22
Excerpt: ...o weeks after that date. The first cause of action alleges that Wireless Buybacks failed to defend John Snyder, and later plaintiff as his successor, in the Sprint Action. The Court is now in a better position to assess this argument, after defendants belatedly provided a copy of the original Sprint complaint (although the Court notes that neither side has provided Sprint's first amended complaint). The demurrer to this cause of action is overrul...
2019.3.15 Motion to Strike Complaint 970
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.15
Excerpt: ...raud‐based counts in the original complaint, holding that a claim of fraud in connection with a medical malpractice case is legally viable only if it is alleged that the defendants actually knew of the falsity of the statements they allegedly made. The Court allowed leave to amend to allow plaintiff to make that allegation, if he could. He has now done so, alleging expressly that “Defendant Toma knew the ‐ 8 ‐ representations were false w...
2019.3.15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 862
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.15
Excerpt: ...or the Court's ruling on the merits. Defendant attaches certain bankruptcy documents in support of two propositions: (1) that plaintiffs and defendants have agreed to the figure for the loan balance as of the date of sale, and; (2) that certain issues were litigated in bankruptcy court in December 2018 and January 2019, and should not be relitigated here. The first proposition is moot, because plaintiffs again stipulate to the loan balance in the...
2019.3.8 Motion for Relief from Default Judgment 430
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.8
Excerpt: ...t doubt on that account but provides no admissible evidence.) Plaintiff argues that defendants did not act diligently in seeking relief. At first cut, though, defendants' explanation suggests that the delay in filing this motion was likewise attributable to the same asserted problems with Mr. Judson. The motion, however, is not accompanied by a proposed answer or other response, as required by the statute. “Application for this relief shall be ...
2019.3.8 Motion for Summary Adjudication 389
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.8
Excerpt: ... provide any tabs for its exhibits, in clear violation of CRC 3.1110(f) and Local Rule 3.42. Plaintiff, on the other hand, provided so many tabs for exhibits and CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 12 HEARING DATE: 03/08/19 ‐ 3 ‐ exhibits to the exhibits that the tabs were of limited usefulness. For example, there are four tabs labeled “Exhibit A”. The Relation of the Parties, and Substance of the Lawsuit Plaintif...
2019.3.1 OSC Re Preliminary Hearing 370
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ...d he wants them to be part of the record in this case, he must immediately serve and file them. In these lodged papers, plaintiff complains that the Opposition was not served on him by email or fax and that he wants additional time. However, the file does not reflect any order requiring service by email or fax. Therefore, under Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(c), service by overnight delivery was sufficient. Furthermore, Code of Civil Procedure �...
2019.3.1 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Sustaining Demurrer 862
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ...rious defects. The third page of the notice of motion, presumably containing a statement of the relief requested and the signature block of plaintiffs' counsel, is missing. The opening memorandum is 20 pages long, without leave of court and without a table of authorities. (CRC 3.1113(d) and (f).) The deposition excerpts submitted with the reply papers are set out within the text of counsel's declaration, rather than in the manner prescribed by th...
2019.3.1 Motion for Monetary and Other Sanctions 422
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ...ed not to disclose or retain any social media content not directly relevant to whether or not plaintiffs were engaged in BHO manufacturing. Seterus must refrain from reviewing any particular content any further than is reasonably required to ascertain whether it is responsive. This case arises from a tragic explosion occurring during plaintiffs' uncle's manufacture of butane honey oil, in which plaintiffs were badly burned. They assert premises l...
2019.3.1 Motion for Attorney Fees 322
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ...s detailed at length in the Court of Appeal's first ruling, of August 23, 2017. To make a long story short, in 2007 the County (specifically the Department of Conservation & Development, Building Inspection Division – hereinafter DCD) issued two Notices To Comply to petitioner homeowners, asserting that there were permitting problems with their use and occupancy of two adjoining properties in Oakley. The DCD never proceeded with any administrat...
2019.3.1 Demurrer 150
Location: Contra Costa
Judge: Treat, Charles S
Hearing Date: 2019.3.1
Excerpt: ... Amended Complaint by April 2, 2019. First Cause of Action (Civil Code §§ 2923.5, 2923.55). Leaving aside the question of which of these two statutes applies (one being on the books in 2018, the other in 2019), the only violation alleged is that Select did not give plaintiff notice that he could request various documents. The allegation of harm to plaintiff resulting from this lack of notice is in ¶ 16(a)(1): “The failure to provide Plaintif...

786 Results

Per page

Pages