";s:4:"text";s:19506:"CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. V. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, ET AL. V. ARVIND SRINIVASAN, ET AL. STEPHEN KUBIAK, ET AL. ROBERT & LUCY PATTERSON V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., ET AL. 8 However, this tentative ruling information is usually taken down from the court's website after several days or weeks. ZL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Tentative rulings are available on the Internet and by telephone. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 21 follows: LTD V. VASILY TROMFIMCHUCK ET AL, DAVID BAEZ ET AL VS CALIFORNIA MEDICAL BOARD. Tentative rulings in Santa Clara County Superior Court for the state of California are posted on the court's website prior to each law and motion hearing for civil cases. INTELLISOFT, LTD. V. ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, clerk and the other side no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing. The court has read and considered the authorities and argument of counsel set forth in the motion to lift stay of discovery, opposition and reply, and makes the following tentative ruling: Tentative rulings are available on this website, on the pages linked below. AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL. Case Records Search. The tentative rulings will be available after 2:00 p.m. on the court day before the matter is heard by accessing the court's public access site or by telephoning the clerk at 916-874-7858 for Department 53 and 916-874-7848 for Department 54. COMPANY, INC.; MATTHEW 408.882.2296 (fax) Background and Discovery Dispute V. ZHEN ZHEN LI, ET AL. I. 12 PEGGY IRENE LEEDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Plaintiff, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT vs. Pursuant to the Rules of Court, forward the proposed order to counsel for review before sending it to the Court for execution and filing. Last. I. Footnote 20: 21 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 3 follows: To Join Department 23 "Zoom" Online If no party has requested oral argument, appearances are not required and the tentative ruling will be adopted as the ruling of the Court. Code 3294(a). 17 The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 18 on September 6, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. GARDEN CITY, INC. V. ERIC SWALLOW, ET AL. HELEN THERESA GIVENS V. ROY ANTHONY GIVENS, ET AL. ROBERT DURHAM V. STEVEN WINEGARDEN, ET AL. LEADFACTORS, LLC V. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. 22 I. INTRODUCTI 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Please wait a moment while we load this page. Check Jury Reporting Status. County Name Santa Clara County Population 1,927,852 Area (sq mi) 1,291 County Seat San Jose Established Year 1850 Board of Supervisors District 1 - Mike Wasserman District 2 - Cindy Chavez District 3 - Dave Cortese District 4 - Susan Ellenberg VEE CORPORATION, DBA VEE COSMETICS V. EVERSHINE I L.P., ET AL. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 26 on September 7, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. Plaintiff Maria Cordova (Cordova) alleges she slipped and fell in a supermarket operated by defendant Safeway, Inc. (doing business as Safeway Rivermark Market) (Safeway). To clear your cache hold down the CTRL and F5 buttons at the same time. Patricia M. Lucas. FORREST HUFF V. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., ET AL. RETIREE JOSEPH HORWEDEL), WILLIAM This is an action for wrongful foreclosure. CITY OF SANTA CLARA VS PSB NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL, VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. You may make your notification to the Court by leaving a message when prompted to do so at the end of the recorded greeting. MILLER V. CORE ANALYTICS LABORATORY, INC., ET AL. alendar Line 4 ARTEM KOSHKALDA VS REBELLOS TOWING SERVICES, INC. corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, FORESITE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT IV, LP V. ESFANDYARPOUR, ET AL. According to the allegations of the first amended complaint (FAC), plaintiffs Keith Tai Wong (Wong) and his wife, Lina Chen (Chen) (collectively, Plaintiffs) are the owners of a commercial tow truck. 12 PERLA GUADALUPE SILVA MAGANA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT vs. 15 SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Factual and Procedural Background ET AL. 5 This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. Posted August 22, 2018 PUBLIC NOTICE: Traffic ticket fines may now be paid online by visiting https://portal.scscourt.org/traffic Posted July 9, 2018 PUBLIC NOTICE: You can always see your envelopes SILVACO, INC. V. OLE CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN, ET AL. ((See Declaration of (Richard J. ARRAYIT CORPORATION, a Nevada Adding your team is easy in the "Manage Company Users" tab. We're sorry your court map could not be found. This a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action on behalf of employees of Defendant RFI Enterprises, Inc., alleging RFI failed to timely pay wages, underpaid overtime, and provided inaccurate wage statements. 2021 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. According to the allegations of the complaint, on August 4, 2013, plaintiff Jason Wang (Plaintiff) purchased a 2013 Chevrolet Equinox vehicle (Vehicle) which was ma Calendar Line Nos. Hearing Jun 03, 2021 The Court now issues its tentative ruling 22 as follows: For directions on how to appear through MS Teams, please refer to the courtsCivil Independent Calendar Hearingswebpage. CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, However, this tentative ruling information is usually taken down from the court's website after several days or weeks. CALIFORNIA SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE V. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC., TONI INGRAM VS CASAVINA FOUNDATION CORPORATION ET AL. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 20 on October 12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. 17 corporation; RICHARD A. VOSS, an individual; 16 GEORGE RIOS, GARY SHOENNAUER, KEN 16 Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, : 19CV359530 AND . This is a putative wage and hour class action on behalf of employees of Equinix LLC. These cross-actions arise from an accident on a construction worksite in which plaintiff Ruben Mendoza was injured. 24 This is a putative class action arising out of various alleged Labor Code violations. Superior Court, 16 Faulkner v. McAfee, Inc., Santa alendar Line 3 9 smanoukian@scscourt.org V. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL NUMBER 3, CATO V. ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES. A. Unless notification to the probate clerk has been given as provided above, the tentative rulings shall become the rulings of the court at 3:15 p.m. on the day of the hearing. Department 2 is located in Downtown Superior Court (DTS), 191 North First Street in San Jose.. 9 9 Civil Index. Pay Traffic Tickets. SILVIA HERNANDEZ V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL. Messages shall be brief, no longer than 30 seconds. 12 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION 3.550) PROCEEDING NO. (First Amended Complaint (FAC), 1.) I. Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings are usually available the . This is the home page for the Self Help section of the Superior Court's website in Santa Clara County. I. To refresh your browser press F5 on the keyboard. ESTEBAN PALOMINO V. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORP., ET AL. Before the Court is plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. 22 According to the allegations of the Complaint, filed on March 21, Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Pursuant to the restrictions in Code of Civil Procedure 1161.2, no tentative rulings are posted for unlawful detainer cases and appearances are required. SIGRID R. WILLIAMS V. PREMIER SPECIALTY BRANDS LLC, ET AL. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION (Consolidated with 13 328572) 14 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF 15 DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT 16 Currently before the Court is the demurrer by defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) to the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiffs Efren Dela Cruz and Evelyn E. Dela Cruz (collectively, Plaintiffs). This action is stayed pending the resolution of Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 16 INC.; LANGAN ENGINEERING AND Plaintiff Alan N. Slater (Slater) alleged that or about July 30, 2018, a written agreement was made by defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. If you do not have access to the Internet during the time period when the rulings are posted and you wish to obtain your tentative ruling, please call (408) 882-2515 for assistance. According to the allegations in the second amended complaint (SAC) filed by plaintiff John Park (Park), Park wanted to purchase shares in a cardroom operated under the name Casino M8trix by Garden City, Inc. (Garden City). Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication The tentative rulings will be available after 2:00 p.m. on the court
16 through 10, inclusive, V. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA. V. LAPTALO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. Case no. Factual and Procedural Background This is a class action arising from allegations that defendant Laptalo Enterprises, Inc. dba JL Precision imposed illegal time rounding and break policies on its employees. BRIAN CROOK, ET AL. For directions on how to appear through MS Teams, please refer to the courts, https://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/virtualhearings, Unlawful Detainer (Landlord-Tenant) Hearings. 17 GREGORY L. SIMENDINGER, individually and INTRODUCTION INDIAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION, ETC. The motion was timely filed and served. 4 I. DOE V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, ET AL. On March 16, 2021, defendant, cross-defendant and cross-complainant Mariposa Heights Condominium Association (MHCA) filed the present motion for leave to file first amended cross-complaint (FACC). BELL INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V. DD STONEBROOK DRIVE, LLC, ET AL. Robertson solicited athletic women 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA You may make your notification to the Court by leaving a message when prompted to do so at the end of the recorded greeting. Being Your Own Lawyer; Civil Order to Show Cause ext. The Court now issue 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 23 I. 12 WALTER MANAY, an individual, JOSE UMANZOR, an individual, individually, and on 13 behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Private Attorneys General Act, FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE 14 ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 21 on October 5, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. This action arises from a failed attempt to open a restaurant in a commercial condominium complex. RAINA ANTLE V. SKINSPIRIT SKINCARE CLINIC AND SPA, ET AL. ROE 1, ET AL. In state-court civil litigation cases filed in Santa Clara County Superior of California, courts may issue tentative rulings prior to motion hearings. V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ET AL. MICHAEL SCHMITZ ET AL VS HEALTHIQ RE, INC. ALPHA OMEGA HOUSE CORPORATION VS THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, LABOR COMMISSIONER FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. CANTON PROSPECT INC., ET. Rulings will remain accessible until the next weeks rulings are posted. V. STEPHEN LAM, ET AL. JENNIFER RICHERT V. SAMARITAN, LLC, ET AL. Background State that you are appearing to contest the tentative ruling. Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication 16 HEALTHIQ RE, INC., a California corporation; If you wish to keep the information in your envelope between pages, SUPERIOR COURT VS. DENICE DEAVILLE ET ALDATE APRIL TIME AM LINE NUMBER THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN IN DEPARTMENT IN THE OLD COURTHOUSE, JEREMIAH BROOKE VS. Civil Tentative Rulings are provided for: Civil Collection Cases ext. I. INTRODUCTION 1 through 10, inclusive, SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Consolidated action, including: FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 14 Greenberg v. McAfee, Inc., Santa Clara County ACTION SETTLEMENT Superior Court, 15 Colwell v. McAfee, Inc., Santa Clara County The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows: I. SHUFF, ET AL. LLC, et al. 18 Defendant. 408.882.2296 (fax) Plaintiff Elizabeth Cardoso (Plaintiff) brings this action against defendant Edward Bright (Defendant) for damages associated with intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 21 follows: This is a lemon law case. () Please check our COVID-19 page for the latest information on Court operations. THE RANCH GOLF CLUB, PURE STORAGE, INC. V. MENLO LAND & CAPITAL II, LLC, MARIE ARNOLD V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: Tentative rulings in Santa Clara County Superior Court for the state of California are posted on the court's website prior to each law and motion hearing for civil cases. These are two separate but related actions now involving the same counsel and arising from the same event. Before the Court is plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, which is unopposed. (Complaint, IT-1.) by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner. Background Any argument is limited to five minutes. JANE DOE V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL. Plaintiffs motion for entry of default is DENIED, for many reasons. 7 V. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DBA SANTA CLARA VALLEY. Case Names: Mark Gomez, et al. 11 JOHNATHAN E. LOOPER V. SKANSKA USA INC., ET AL. CAL. determine whether or not an appearance is required. 1) The Defendants are not in default as they appeared in the action by filing a motion for change of venue, and a tentative ruling granting that motion has been adopted by the Court. (Complaint, BC-1 and Exh. MENDOZA V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE, INC. KENNETH ROSENBERG V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, SUNPOWER CORPORATION VS MARTIN DEBONO ET AL, CALIFORNIA SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INST. BRIAN PETERS V. RFI ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. ORION LISTUG, ET AL. Any party desiring to be heard, must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line
Messages shall be brief, no longer than 30 seconds. dedicated phone number for the department as referenced in the local telephone
Filter by a specific county without spaces. I. 17 The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas 18 on June 16, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Depar 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Footnote 16: SHUFF V. STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC., ET AL. As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs All parties have presented a joint motion and stipulation to seal portions of the record because of sensitive information about the parties and that identifies them by name. Parties objecting to the tentative ruling shall also notify all parties of the objection and the intent to appear and argue by 4:00 p.m. on the day prior to the hearing. http://www.scsCourt.org 50, inclusive, DATE: 24 June 2021 TIME: 9:0 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 KORBIN WILSON and MATTHEW BURNHAM, as individuals, on behalf of 13 themselves and all others similarly situated and TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION the State of California as a private attorney FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 general, CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 15 Plaintiffs, Adding your team is easy in the "Manage Company Users" tab. The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on February 28, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. WebThank you for visiting the Superior Court's Tentative Ruling web page for Department 2, Judge Drew Takaichi presiding. TERRESTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LLC ET AL VS JAY BLOUNT ET AL. 2. A tentative ruling is the proposed ruling of the court. JUAN ET AL V. LOVING QUALITY CARE HOMES, INC ET AL, LSI CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL VS KIRAN GUNNAM ET AL, CREDIT CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. V. PAREDES, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. V. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO, ORNELAS V. MAPLEBEAR, INC. (D/B/A INSTACART). Tentative rulings may be accessed on the
The Court now issues its tentative ruling 22 as follows: 6. 25 According to the allegations of the 8 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA : 21CV378097 I. This action arises out of a business dispute between plaintiff Tongtai Machine and Tool Co., Ltd. (Tongtai) and defendant and cross-complainant Nano Systems, Inc., (Nano). Tentative rulings issued by Department 3 will be accessible on this page after 2:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. V. ART OF REFLEXOLOGY MILPITAS, LLC, ET AL. Messages shall be brief, no longer than 30 seconds. Parties who do not call to contest the ruling before 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing or appear without notice to the Court and opposing counsel will not be heard. (Note: rulings will remain accessible until replaced by successive rulings.). try clicking the minimize button instead. SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL. ALIVIA STRICKLIN V. FIRST ALARM SECURITY & PATROL, INC., ET AL. DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 5 The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle 23 on September 21, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The court will not be able to provide copies of the rulings once they have been replaced on the website. You do not need to call or leave a message if you are not contesting the ruling. at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel
MICHAEL TYLER AND MONICA SJOBLOM-TYLER V. MANJIT WALIA, BARTHI KASHYAP, ET AL. GUYSI V. BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES USA CORPORATION, ET AL. is required. The Court may charge fees to access documents in the future. 21 I. Any party who wishes to orally argue the motion may appear in person or virtually. 2 ROADRUNNER PETROLEUM, INC. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE V. BLUE CROSS OF CAL., ET AL. 21 I. 23 This is a putative class action. 408.882.2296 (fax) On this page, you will find every civil tentative ruling from Santa Clara County Superior. INTRODUCTION (PAGA), JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, VS CHERYL POLAND, KATALYST DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS GABRIEL MICHEL ET AL. make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day
Plaintiff Omeca Kelly alleges that she and other employees were required to work unpaid overtime and were not permitted to take meal and rest breaks. TEMPORARY Virtual Hearing Links During Microsoft Teams Outage https://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/virtualhearings. TRISTA THOMAS V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL. 19 The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Patricia M. Lucas 20 on June 9, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 3. According to the allegations of the second amended complaint (SAC), on January 30, 2016, plaintiff Thu Minh Tran (Tran), on behalf of plaintiff My Crawfish, Inc. (My Crawfish) (collectively, Plaintiffs), and defendant Ly T Truc Nguyen (Nguyen) and nonparty Joanne Vuong (Vuong) entered into an agreement in which Plaintiffs agreed to sell -4 The tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. 23 I. v. The Ranch Golf Club, et al. 17 Defendants. Factual and Procedural Background HANS SAN JOSE HOSPITALITY LLC V. LE HOLDINGS (BEIJING) CO., LTD., ET AL. ";s:7:"keyword";s:51:"santa clara county superior court tentative rulings";s:5:"links";s:674:"What Does The Nips Are Getting Bigger Mean,
Warren Spahn Fastball Speed,
Tassajara Poppy Seed Cake Recipe,
Ted Levine Mac Levine,
Articles S
";s:7:"expired";i:-1;}
