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
Defendant set the hearing date but did not submit the moving papers. After the deadline for submission had passes I was preparing opposition partially based on this fact. When I was ready to submit my opposition, defendant simply scheduled ne...
As the moving party, the defendant has the right to take a motion off calendar or to re-notice the motion. This would not considered an improper continuance. Check with the court clerk to ascertain if the original motion date is still on calendar; do not rely on any online court docket. If the motion is still on calendar, you will need to file a timely opposition.See question
Bank's case is that I defaulted in payments for my visa account. Cause of action breach of contract and common counts. They seek principle of entire amount of debt plus interest, attorney's fees and cost. I acknowledge the debt but deny the other ...
Section 4b is primarily used for the judge to ascertain the nature of the dispute and the amount of damages sought for purposes of setting the case for trial. It is not necessary for a defendant to provide too much explanation regarding defenses, nor should a defendant use the Case Management Statement to discuss potential settlement terms.See question
I'm a defendant on a civil case and we have a case management conference coming up. I just received the plaintiffs statement in the mail. Do I need to file something before the hearing? It doesn't say anything about responding. This case stems fro...
Yes, you need to file a Case Management Statement (Judicial Council Form CM-110) with the court at least 15 days prior to the Case Management Conference. At a Case Management Conference, the two primary things that happens is that court will set a trial date and then probably refer the case to mediation. In California civil cases, case management is governed by the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code sections 68600-68620).
Under Rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties have an obligation to "meet and confer" either in person or via telephone no later than 30 calendar days before the date set for the initial Case Management Conference regarding each of the issues identified in Rule 3.727 of the California Rules of Court:
In addition, the parties during the "meet and confer" are required to consider the following:
(1) Resolving any discovery disputes and setting a discovery schedule;
(2) Identifying and, if possible, informally resolving any anticipated motions;
(3) Identifying the facts and issues in the case that are uncontested and may be the subject of stipulation;
(4) Identifying the facts and issues in the case that are in dispute;
(5) Determining whether the issues in the case can be narrowed by eliminating any claims or defenses by means of a motion or otherwise;
(6) Determining whether settlement is possible;
(7) Identifying the dates on which all parties and their attorneys are available or not available for trial, including the reasons for unavailability;
(8) Any issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information, including:
-- (A) Issues relating to the preservation of discoverable electronically stored information;
-- (B) The form or forms in which information will be produced;
-- (C) The time within which the information will be produced;
-- (D) The scope of discovery of the information;
-- (E) The method for asserting or preserving claims of privilege or attorney work product, including whether such claims may be asserted after production;
-- (F) The method for asserting or preserving the confidentiality, privacy, trade secrets, or proprietary status of information relating to a party or person not a party to the civil proceedings;
-- (G) How the cost of production of electronically stored information is to be allocated among the parties;
-- (H) Any other issues relating to the discovery of electronically stored information, including developing a proposed plan relating to the discovery of the information; and
(9) Other relevant matters.
Finally, each party is required to file a Case Management Statement (Judicial Council Form CM-110) with the court at least 15 days prior to the Case Management Conference. The following is a link to the Case Management Statement form:
The Case Management Statement is where you can articulate to the court particular issues regarding your case, such as the pending criminal case.See question
Recently I filed for eviction due to non payment of rent and tenant filed an answer. I then submitted Request to set case for trial (form UD-150). When I submitted the Request to set case for trial I was told by the clerk that eviction hearing dat...
No. However, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1170.5 (a) provides that if the defendant appears pursuant to Section 1170, trial of the proceeding shall be held not later than the 20th day following the date that the request to set the time of the trial is made.See question
We bought house that had squatters, the area has no rent control, they have only been there less than 4 month. They were served a 3 day notice,next step is proceeding with the 30 day notice and unlawful detainer, when we go to court what can I sa...
You should file a forcible detainer/forcible entry lawsuit, rather than an unlawful detainer lawsuit, against the squatters. An unlawful detainer action assumes that the occupants are lawful tenants; in other words, a landord-tenant relationship. Rather than a 3-day or 30 day notice, you must serve the squatter(s) five days' written notice prior to filing the suit pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1160, then serve the squatter(s) with the forcible detainer/forcible entry lawsuit.See question