M. James Lorenz

“Chase's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Further, it is ORDERED that: 1. Chase's motion is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action and Loeza's waiting time penalty claim, and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. Chase's motion is otherwise DENIED.”

“IT IS ORDERED granting plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice subject to the condition that should plaintiff seeks to amend his state court complaint to name defendant City of Escondido, or refile an action against defendant under the same or substantially similar facts or law, plaintiff shall bear defendant’s costs from this suit for discovery, motion practice, or any other items, which defendant is able to demonstrate cannot be used in the second or future litigation.”

“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant's counterclaim. ... (1) GRANTS the motion with respect to the abuse-of-process cause of action, and accordingly, DISMISSES it from this case; and (2) DENIES the motion with respect to the slander-of-title cause of action.”

“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss, and DENIES Defendants' motion to strike. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint only as to the false-imprisonment claim, he may do so by May 2, 2013.”

“Defendants fail to show that the paragraphs identified in the SAC are either immaterial or impertinent. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to strike.”

“Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.”

“IT IS ORDERED defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's claim for violation of his right of access to the courts is dismissed without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's claim for failure to protect is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants Goff, Homer and Cortez; 3. Plaintiff's due process claim is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may file an amended complaint in conformity with this Order on or before March 29, 2010.”

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED;”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss in its' entirety. ... The Court finds that the deficiencies in the initial complaint could be cured by amendment. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for leave to amend its initial complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than 14 days after the date this order is issued.”

“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend.”

“Defendant FCA's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 5) is GRANTED with respect to the negligent misrepresentation claim and DENIED in all other respects. ... Because amendment of the negligent misrepresentation claim does not seem possible under the economic loss rule and because Plaintiffs have not argued that they can amend this claim, leave to amend is denied as futile.”

“Defendant Stericycle’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 6) is DENIED.”

“For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including their motion to exclude expert evidence, is denied.”

“To the extent Defendants move to exclude Mr. Scherer’s and Dr. Raiff’s expert opinions in an effort to secure summary judgment, their motion is denied as moot. In the alternative, the motion to exclude is denied because the expert opinions at issue have since been revised.”

“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

“For the reasons stated above, Dr. Tran’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”