What is a Condensed Narrative/Settled Statement on Appeal?

Useful Rulings on Condensed Narrative/Settled Statement on Appeal

Recent Rulings on Condensed Narrative/Settled Statement on Appeal

BELLAGIO CONSTRUCTION INC VS HAZEM ZEKRY

s Motion for Settled Statement is DENIED. Bellagio Construction, Inc. seeks a settled statement for appellate purposes. California Rules of Court, Rule 8.137 provides a settled statement may be used where the proceedings were not reported. It is undisputed that Bellagio Construction, Inc. did not indicate it was electing to use a settled statement in its Notice of Designating the Record on Appeal ("NDRA").

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WELLEN VS. WELLEN

SPECIAL SET HEARING ON: POST-TRIAL BRIEFING SET BY THE COURT * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff having requested that the Court proceed by statement of decision rather than verdict from the bench, the Court is drafting its Proposed Statement of Decision. It expects to mail that document to the attorneys today or tomorrow. In light of the comprehensive post-trial briefing, the Court sees no need for oral argument. The parties should proceed as provided in CRC 3.1590.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

SINGH V. HAMID

On August 6, 2018 the court issued a proposed statement of decision. Plaintiff and defendants filed objections to the proposed statement of decision. The final statement of decision was entered on May 1, 2019. The court determined that there was an enforceable oral shareholder agreement between the three parties in this action for equal shareholder interests in the subject corporation, the contract continues to the present day, and the action against defendant is not time-barred.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

GUNTER ZIELKE ET AL VS ERIC SCOTT ROSENSTIEL ET AL

Contents of Proposed Settled Statement California Rules of Court, Rule 8.137(d) provides that the proposed statement must (1) contain a statement of the points the appellant is raising on appeal; (2) contain a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings specified by the appellant; and (3) have attached to it a copy of the judgment or order being appealed. On July 15, 2020 Defendants/Appellants filed an amended proposed statement on appeal.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

IN THE MATTER OF GARY G LUSK

Petitioner has attached a proposed Statement by Nominee. Petitioner "believes this plan is a simple solution to allow for an efficient and timely termination of this modest probate estate. It will also spare petitioner and his wife, the other intestate heir, the emotional strain of keeping the probate open for years to come." Probate Code § § 11850.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

MARY MITRACOS ET AL. VS CITY OF TRACY, BY AND THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL

In or around March 2020, Petitioner lodged with the court her proposed Statement of Decision which the court has read and considered. Respondent and real party in interest were served on or about March 19, 2020 as noted in petitioner’s proof of service. The time in which respondents could object to the proposed statement of decision has long passed CRC 3.1590(j). The court intends to accept the proposed statement of decision and order such filed herein.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

DIXON VS DARLING

Since the alleged negligent conduct was discovered sometime before the Underlying Petition was filed, the statute of limitation began to run as early as November of 2016, and at the latest, by the time the probate court issued its proposed Statement of Decision in February of 2018... Nor was a judgment necessary in the Underlying Petition for this malpractice action to become “ripe”.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

ESTATE OF BARNES MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

On the merits, all of these issues have been exhaustively litigated in the context of Celestine Barnes’s numerous objections to the proposed statement of decision. The authorities presented appear to be the same authorities on which Celestine Barnes relied previously. The Court is not persuaded that there is any merit to any of the claims.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

KIUMARS SOLEIMANY ET AL VS MOSTAFA NARIMANZADEH ET AL

On December 16, 2019, the Court conducted the second phase of the trial regarding damages and on December 17, 2019, the Court announced its Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish any damages; this became the Final Statement of Decision. On January 13, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARLOS AND MERCEDES GEORGE TRUST VS. AURELIO PEDONE

Any party may, within 15 days after the proposed statement of decision and judgment have been served, serve and file objections to the proposed statement of decision or judgment." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590, subd. (d) & (g).) Merits Order No. 3: Concrete Posts – Defendant objects to the Court's Additional Findings, Order No. 3, made on October 09, 2020 which states: "3) the concrete posts are ordered to be removed by Mr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

HARRY D MCGOVERN VS. JIM CARTER

In their objections to the Court’s Tentative Ruling/Proposed Statement of Decision/ Proposed Judgment, which contained the identical language pertaining to the CC Section 317(d) fees and costs being determined post-trial, the Carter Sons and MCM asserted that “the issue of whether any party wishes to claim prevailing party status, or seek the award of attorney’s fees, is an issue that must be addressed through post-trial motions . . . .”

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

LUIS CALDERON VS MICHAEL KOUTSOUKOS ET AL

Further the Court has no recollection nor notes indicating, as alleged in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, that the Court “succinctly stated that even though [the Court] might be inclined to set aside the judgment, [the Court] would not be able to do so . . . .” (See Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, Attachment 6.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

LUIS CALDERON VS MICHAEL KOUTSOUKOS ET AL

Further the Court has no recollection nor notes indicating, as alleged in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, that the Court “succinctly stated that even though [the Court] might be inclined to set aside the judgment, [the Court] would not be able to do so . . . .” (See Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, Attachment 6.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

LUIS CALDERON VS MICHAEL KOUTSOUKOS ET AL

Further the Court has no recollection nor notes indicating, as alleged in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, that the Court “succinctly stated that even though [the Court] might be inclined to set aside the judgment, [the Court] would not be able to do so . . . .” (See Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, Attachment 6.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

ELIEL BASTIDA VS ORI ZAIRI

.: SC 123961 TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s request to augment Section 3, Summary of the Parties’ Testimony and Other Evidence in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s request to augment Attachment 5, Summary of Motions in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, is DENIED. Plaintiff may raise any appropriate legal argument on appeal, including reference to the Court’s Statement of Decision, which addresses the issues raised by Appellant.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARK BRAWERMAN ET AL VS LOEB & LOEB LLP ET AL

Reviewing the judgment and objections to the proposed statement of decision can be time-intensive tasks which require several hours of work. These billing items reflect this reality. Plaintiffs have not substantiated a ground to reduce Defendants’ billable hours. Conclusion Defendants’ motion for attorney fees is granted in the total amount of $94,972.50.[4]

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

ACOSTA VS. REMINGTON LODGING

If Defendant wishes to communicate with potential class members regarding this lawsuit, it shall submit a proposed statement to the Court setting forth the information that it wishes to communicate, the means it intends to use to make the communication, and individual(s) who will make the communication. Further, a corrective notice is warranted, but may be included with the class notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

GLORIA MOSQUERA VS. HANI MAMMO

(See Trial Brief filed on September 18, 2019 [“8209”] and Objections to Court’s Proposed Statement of Decision [“8201”].) Additionally, the website for Defendant’s counsel indicates that the address is “8209.” (See https://abalawgroup.com/.) Therefore, Defendant does not appear to have proper service of this motion, though the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff does not appear to be aware of an address change.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

INTERNATIONAL SKYWAYS MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. VS VIK BENLIAN

The Court issued a proposed statement of decision on 2/24/20, and adopted the decision as final on 3/06/20. In its statement of decision, the Court found Plaintiff had greatly inflated his claims, and reduced his award to $36,348.49, which is 37% of the Labor Commissioner’s award. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees At this time, Plaintiff moves to recover attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $83,962.50.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

GEORGE V. VOONG, ET AL.

Mtn: GEORGE’s Motion to Use a Settled Statement on Appeal TENTATIVE RULING Parties to appear. CourtCall or Zoom is approved.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

SMITH, THOMAS ET AL VS. GUY, BRUCE ET AL

The Court has received a request for Statement of Damages and the Court's deadline to issue a proposed Statement of Damages is July 13, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MARIA NIEVES VEGA VS. MARIA DE LOURDES GONZALEZ

. _____________________________________________ The following is the Court's tentative decision concerning the objections of plaintiff, Victor Vega, guardian ad litem for plaintiff, Maria Nieves Vega ("Vega"), as to the Proposed Statement of Decision issued by the Court on March 11, 2020 ("PSOD"), in this action by Vega against defendant, Maria De Lourdes Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"): The Court SUSTAINS Vega's objection to page 2, lines 16-22 of the PSOD.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HOANG V. SOUTH LONGSPUR TRUST, ETC., AS TRUSTEE

All parties to the appeal shall provide the court with a proposed settled statement on Judicial Council Form APP-014.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

GUNTER ZIELKE ET AL VS ERIC SCOTT ROSENSTIEL ET AL

However, Defendants/Appellants have not provided a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings specified by the appellant. (See Appellants’ Proposed Settled Statement, ¶ 6, Attachment 6.) Defendants/Appellants’ Summary of Motions is argumentative and primarily restates the arguments of Defendants/Appellants’ motions. The proposed settled statement must therefore be corrected to be in compliance with Rule 8.137(d) and provide a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

HARRY TRAN VS ST GEORGE & ASSOCIATES

January 31: Defendant submitted and served a proposed statement of decision. February 3: Plaintiff filed and served a proposed statement of decision, which included points and authorities showing the standards and procedures applicable to the court’s statement of decision and argument why the tentative decision was incorrect. February 6: The court signed and entered defendant’s statement of decision.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.