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

771 Results

Clear Search Parameters x
Location: Orange County x
Judge: Gastelum, John C 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 = 236)) AND term_taxonomy_id IN (SELECT term_id FROM wp_term_taxonomy WHERE taxonomy = 'wpmf-category' AND term_taxonomy_id = 347)) AND (true) AND (true) ORDER BY post_title DESC LIMIT 500,25
Array
(
)
2019.7.23 Motion to Compel Further Responses 635
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...e is GRANTED in part, DENIED without prejudice in part. As to Form Interrogatory Nos. 15.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, and 50.5, the Motion is GRANTED.  Form Interrogatory No. 15.1: Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 15.1 is in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220 as it is not complete and straightforward. Defendant's Answer asserted 51 affirmative defenses; yet Defendant's response to this interrogatory fails to address each su...
2019.7.23 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 984
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.23
Excerpt: ...sues. There is a three-step process in reviewing a summary judgment motion. (Hansra v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 630, 638 (“Hansra”).) The court first “ ‘identif[ies] the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent's pleading. [Citatio...
2019.7.19 Motion to Compel Further Responses 358
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.19
Excerpt: ...nt identified Life Care Centers of America, Inc. and provided the place of incorporation and/or the address of the company's principal place of business. Plaintiff's interrogatory indicates the term identify shall mean “with respect to company, state the name of the company, the place of incorporation of the company, and the address of the company's principal place of business.” While Plaintiff contends Defendant has failed to identify which ...
2019.7.19 Demurrer, Motion to Furnish Undertaking 744
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.19
Excerpt: ...erg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1, 20 [failure to oppose issue raised in demurrer deemed abandonment of the issue].) Plaintiffs are to file any amended Complaint within 15 days service of notice of this order. (2) Motion to Furnish an Undertaking: The Court GRANTS the unopposed Motion for Order Requiring Out-of-State Plaintiff to File Bond of $10,000. Based on the Complaint, Plaintiffs are out-of-state residents; thus, they meet ...
2019.7.19 Motion to Compel Deposition, to Consolidate 951
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.19
Excerpt: ...osition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.480.) This rule applies to business records subpoenas. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 8:609.1.) The objections or other responses to a business records subpoena are the “deposition record” for the purposes of measuring the 60-day period for a motion to compel. (Unzipped ...
2019.7.2 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 625
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.2
Excerpt: ... objecting party's opposition”. The Court SUSTAINS only Objection Nos. 8 and 10 and OVERRULES all other objections to the Feeney Declaration. Defendant CHELSEA's Evidentiary Objections: The Court SUSTAINS only evidentiary objection No. 8 which MOOTS evidentiary objection Nos. 9 and 10. Issue No. 1: As to the 1 st COA (breach of fiduciary duty), the Court finds that CHELSEA failed to establish that it did not owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs a...
2019.7.2 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 296
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.2
Excerpt: ...hout first obtaining a determination of good cause from the Court. The hearing is noticed for 6-25-19, and trial is set for 7-22-19. Without a finding of good cause from the Court, the notice of hearing was invalid. (Robinson v. Woods(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268.) The Court's independent research has not revealed any authority to support the proposition that the filing of an opposition and appearing to argue at the hearing by the party oppos...
2019.7.2 Motion for Preference 049
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.2
Excerpt: ...on. (Code Civ. Proc., §36(a)(2).) Attorney Sobati's Declaration does not provide the required “diagnosis or prognosis” of Plaintiff's condition required by Code of Civil Procedure section 36.5. However, given the seriousness of Shirley's injury, illnesses, and her age, the Court, in its inherent discretion to avoid prejudice to either party, sets the trial for 1-6-20, Dept. C11, at 9 am. (Code Civ. Proc., §36(e).) Any pre-trial motions and ...
2019.7.2 Motion to Compel Answers 216
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.2
Excerpt: ...its ruling denying defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court concludes it may rule on the pending discovery motions. The motions concern discovery, which was not shown by defendants to affect the effectiveness of any ruling by the Court of Appeal. As noted in Varian Medical Systems (2005) 35 Cal.4 th 180, 190, “an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the me...
2019.7.2 Motion to Quash Subpoena 415
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.2
Excerpt: ...y regarding his medical treatment and medical records. The subpoena seeks the following documents from Hoag: “Complete medical records from April 7, 2018 through July 7, 2018, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: documents, correspondence, correspondence from the patient, intake forms, medical reports, doctor's entries, nurse's notes, office notes, progress reports, monitor strip...
2019.7.2 Motion to Tax Costs 079
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.7.2
Excerpt: ...tiff has submitted the declaration of her counsel, Walter Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell declares that neither he nor his office ever received a copy of the 998 offer. (Mitchell Decl. at ¶¶ 1, 2.) He also states there was no mention of the 998 offer at the MSC on 2-21-19. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also submits her own declaration stating no 998 offer was presented to her or mentioned to her by her attorney pre trial, and the first time she learned of th...
2019.6.25 Motion to Compel Further Responses 488
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.25
Excerpt: ...et of Requests for Production is DENIED. (1) Form Interrogatories: Plaintiffs seek Defendant Brennan's further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 15.1, 17.1, 50.1-50.6. Interrogatory No. 15.1: This interrogatory asked the factual basis, identification of any supporting documents, and witnesses for all asserted affirmative defenses.  Defendant's responses are inadequate, incomplete, and/or evasive; and his boilerplate objections appear to be ...
2019.6.25 Motion to Compel Answers, Request for Sanctions 466
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.25
Excerpt: ...atories is GRANTED, in part, as follows. Plaintiff Jeff Schwartz: As to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, the Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff's response to RFA Nos. 40-44 are code compliant. Plaintiff did not refuse to apply the provided definition of the term “SHORT SALE.” (SeeAnalysis below re RFAs.) As to Special Interrogatory No. 46, the Motion is DENIED. This request is overly broad in scope and time frame. As to Special Interrogatory No. 48, the...
2019.6.25 Motion for Summary Judgment, Adjudication 606
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.25
Excerpt: ...of James Kim is OVERRULED Defendants' Marshall B. Ketchum University, Edward Fisher, and Monica Trivedi's Motion for Summary Judgement is DENIED. Their Motion for Summary Adjudication is also DENIED. The Court considers this as a Motion for Summary Judgment only. To the extent the Separate Statement purports to support a motion for summary adjudication, it does not comply with California Rule of Court Rule 3.1350(b). The “issues” are not stat...
2019.6.18 Motion to Compel Further Responses 488
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.18
Excerpt: ...uests for Production is DENIED. (1) Form Interrogatories: Plaintiffs seek Defendant Brennan's further responses to Form Plaintiffs seek Defendant Brennan's further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 15.1, 17.1, 50.1-50.6. Interrogatory No. 15.1: This interrogatory asked the factual basis, identification of any supporting documents, and witnesses for all asserted affirmative defenses.  Defendant's responses are inadequate, incomplete, and/or ...
2019.6.18 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 757
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.18
Excerpt: ...s no collusion, fraud, tortious conduct or effect to injure the non-settling defendants; that Defendant BONILLA will pay $29k of the $30k GEICO auto insurance policy limits to GERMAN PLAINTIFFS in exchange or settlement of all claims; and that Defendant BONILLA will pay $1k to the ESCAMILLA PLAINTIFFS in exchange for a release of all claims. (See Hodge Decl., ¶¶ 5 and 6.) Defendant BONILLA also presented evidence that he has no appreciable asse...
2019.6.18 Motion to Compel Arbitration 522
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.18
Excerpt: ...one must be a party to invoke an arbitration agreement: “there are six theories by which a nonsignatory may be bound to arbitrate: (a) incorporation by reference; (b) assumption; (c) agency; (d) veil-piercing or alter ego; (e) estoppel; and (f) third-party beneficiary.” (Young Seok Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1513.) “‘By relying on contract terms in a claim against a nonsignatory defendant, even if not exclusively, ...
2019.6.11 Motion to Appoint Discovery Referee 722
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.11
Excerpt: ...covery referee are: multiple voluminous discovery motions involving various issues of privilege, and third parties. The Court also believes it is likely, given the virtually unbroken chain of discovery disputes in this case, that more such disputes will be forthcoming before trial. The parties are directed to meet and confer before 7-1-19, to determine whether they (i) agree to the appointment of a discovery referee pursuant to Code of Civil Proc...
2019.6.11 Motion to Stay Proceedings 734
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.11
Excerpt: ...tion.” Plaintiff, however, in Opposition presented evidence that there is no pending criminal action against Defendant and the O.C.D.A. rejected the case and does not intend on filing any criminal action against Defendant. (See Kazerouni Decl., ¶¶7-8, Exh. A.) As such, based on the evidence, it is highly unlikely that Defendant will be faced with a criminal action. Further, as to Defendant's contention concerning his right to exercise his 5 t...
2019.6.4 Motion to Compel Arbitration, Compel Production, for Preference 522
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ...exceptions to the general rule that one must be a party to invoke an arbitration agreement: “there are six theories by which a nonsignatory may be bound to arbitrate: (a) incorporation by reference; (b) assumption; (c) agency; (d) veil-piercing or alter ego; (e) estoppel; and (f) third-party beneficiary.” (Young Seok Suh v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1513.) “‘By relying on contract terms in a claim against a nonsignatory ...
2019.6.4 Motion for Judgment, Adjudication 663
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ...en by submitting the factually devoid discovery responses of Defendant Douglas Fir Holdings, LLC dba Huntington Valley Healthcare Center, there is reason to deny without prejudice to allow Defendant to obtain the necessary evidence to create a triable issue of material fact. As Plaintiff's motion establishes, within days of Defendants Answering the Complaint, Plaintiff served RFAs. Defendant responded on January 4, 2019 and by February 27, 2019 (...
2019.6.4 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 983
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ... substituted into this case on behalf of Plaintiff; and after his review or the currently-operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), he determined certain language in the existing pleading needed to be cleaned up, certain language pertaining to the interrelationship of the Defendants needed to be added and/or clarified, and the evidence in this case gave rise to valid causes of action for Unfair Competition under California Business and Profe...
2019.6.4 Motion to Compel Arbitration 029
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ... such, Defendants have no evidence of an “agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED, without prejudice. Defendants will need to re-file the Motion and properly lay the foundation and establish that Plaintiff signed the Retainer Agreement. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff's objection to paragraph 5 of Mr. Falcioni's declaration in support of the Motion. Based on same, Defendants have no evidence establishing that a valid agreement to...
2019.6.4 Motion to Compel Production, Responses 051
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.6.4
Excerpt: ...s not timely. Plaintiffs provide no information as to when the responses/verifications were served, no calculations as to dates, and no legal authority. This motion must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery or fax or electronically; see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(4)). Otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response to the section 2031.010 ...
2019.5.8 OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 683
Location: Orange County
Judge: Gastelum, John C
Hearing Date: 2019.5.8
Excerpt: ...y is to give notice. Plaintiff Seeks a Mandatory Injunction: “[T]he general rule is that an injunction is prohibitory if it requires a person to refrain from a particular act and mandatory if it compels performance of an affirmative act that changes the position of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 525; Kettenhofen v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 189, 191 [10 Cal.Rptr. 356, 358 P.2d 684]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. *447 1985) Provision...

771 Results

Per page

Pages