Default is entered against Defendant Suspended Corporation. I sued Suspended Corporation, President of Suspended Corporation, Sister Corporation, and Sister Corporation's President. I am alleging alter ego liability for the breach of contract ...
If default is already entered against the suspended corporation, you cannot propound discovery to the suspended corporation (and likewise cannot file a motion to compel the suspended corporation to respond to discovery). You may, however, propound discovery to the individual defendant who is the president of the suspended corporation. You can also file a motion to compel (further) answers to discovery against the individual defendant, so long as you follow the proper procedures with respect to meeting and confering and filing a separate statement in conjunction with your motion to compel further responses.See question
Am I limited to using the limited civil form interrogatories in my case, or can I use the judicial council form which has 17.1 to include with my admissions requests?
If your case is a limited jurisdiction case, you cannot use DISC-001 Form Interrogatories-General to ask Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 because they contain subparts. You can only use DISC-004 Form Interrogatories-Limited Civil Cases which have no subparts.See question
This would be our second time amending the complaint.
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 472(a), a party may amend its pleading ONCE without leave of the court at any time before the answer or demurrer is filed. A plaintiff desiring to file a Second Amended Complaint must make a noticed motion for leave to amend, or alternatively obtain a stipulation by all parties, before a Second Amended Complaint can be filed.See question
A attorney filed a ex parte to motion to enforce a sttlement He got it and the judge wants me to file an opposition. Basic he wants to hear my side.
There is no Judicial Council form for an opposition (which normally would consist of a memorandum of points and authorities along with a declaration), but what appears essential here is your declaration signed under penalty of perjury setting forth your side of the story as to why the settlement ought not be enforced. You can use the Judicial Council declaration form MC-030 for this purpose: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc030.pdfSee question
Folks, I filed a complaint and opposing counsel demurred. I have since filed an amended complaint and served on all parties. However, the initial demur hearing is still on the calendar. Is it not opposing counsel's responsibility to remove that he...
Correct, it is the moving party's obligation (and right) to take the pending demurrer off calendar. Filing an amended complaint in almost all instances will render the demurrer moot. The court will likely note this in a tentative ruling prior to the hearing on the demurrer. There really isn't anything you can or should do, other than to remind the demurring party to take the demurrer off calendar.See question
I am plaintiff and the defendant did not answer this question intentionally so that I would not sue his insurance carrier and claim my damages from his insurance carrier. He intentionally left it blank. Does this constitute fraud against me a...
You cannot sue the insurance carrier, even if there is insurance coverage. Also, you cannot sue the defendant or his lawyer for the response on the Case Management Statement. It does not constitute actionable fraud upon the court. Be mindful that the Item 11 on CM-110 asks about the insurance carrier "if any" for the party filing the Case Management Statement. It is quite possible the insurance carrier denied coverage. You should have ascertained insurance coverage through written discovery during the pendancy of your case. In California civil cases, case management is governed by the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code sections 68600-68620). Case Management Conferences and Case Management Statements are cover under the California Rules of Court, Rules 3.720-3.727. In any event, if you indicate the case is now over, this issue is now moot. If you settled, you most likely signed a settlement agreement and release containing a waiver of California Civil Code section 1542.See question
2 parties applied for quiet title action for 1 property. If one party is granted the quiet title action does the court notify the other party.
No, the court does not notify the other party. Here, your hypothetical question reveals an inherent defect in one or both quiet title actions because, by statute, all persons who claim an interest in the real property should be named in the lawsuit. A plaintiff must name as defendants all persons known or unknown claiming an interest in the property. See California Code of Civil Procedure sections 762.010 and 762.020. As such, each party should have been named as a defendant in the other party's quiet title action, thereby giving notice and the court jurisdiction to rule. Moreover, the two quiet title actions should have been deemed related and consolidated. If there is another quiet title action pending, each party has the obligation to file a Notice of Related Case pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.300. The Notice of Related Case must be filed as soon as possible and no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known. Here is the form:
My 1-year lease ends on 2/15/17 and the house is currently "pending" sale. I have not yet been asked to vacate the unit and my annual lease turns month-to-month on 2/16/17. According to other research, I am entitled to relocation fee of at least $...
No, not if the single family residence you are renting is not subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stablization Ordinance (LARSO, also know as rent control). For more information, see:
And what is the minimum by mail (adding 5 days) and service? Obviously, it has to be at a reasonable time to serve the non-party witness the continued date? Do I also need to serve the opposing party's attorney?
First of all, I assume by "mutually agreed upon" that the non-party deponent was included in this agreement to the new date for the deposition, and that the non-party deponent was previously personally served with the deposition subpoena as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.280, subdivision (b). If so, you will not need to re-serve the deposition subpoena. (If not, you need to comply with the time requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270.) Nevertheless, you should serve a Notice of Continuance of Deposition on both the opposing counsel and the deponent with a proof of service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240, subdivision (a) so that you can use it later in the event you need to file a motion to compel attendance if the deponent fails to appear.See question
Am I correct that motion to dismiss must be heard by the court before demurrer, as responsive pleading, or that the motion will never be heard? Or becomes negated.
Is your motion to dismiss based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction or lack of personal jurisdiction? Under the express provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (e), a challenge to personal jurisdiction is waived if a defendant demurs or moves to strike without concurrently moving to quash. However, a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is never waived. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to hear and resolve a particular dispute or cause of action. (Donaldson v. National Marine, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 503, 512; Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1029 1030.). In California state court, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is tantamount to a demurrer pursuant to California Code of Civl Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (a). “Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.” (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 288.)See question