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

DEAN J. ZAMANI VS. JOHN DINOVI, ET AL

Zimani also contends that the accounting report found Zamani made a $53,760 contribution ($10,000 + $43,760), and therefore included it as part of the settled statement. Zimani therefore requests the court reaffirm the prior tentative and deny the motion. The settlement agreement specifically required the retention of an accounting firm in order to determine any and all disputes over the sale of the property and any other claims presented arising from the settlement agreement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RODERICK EARL VANGA VS RICHARD S GLUCKMAN MD

As to a condensed narrative of oral proceedings, Appellant has for most proceedings only provided whether motions were denied or granted, without providing a summary of the oral proceedings on each hearing date. (See Proposed Settled Statement, ¶ 6.) 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

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ARTHUR PATTERSON III V. CITY OF PASO ROBLES

Albrecht (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 4 [“Obviously, the parking by the defendant of his car on the left side of the road was not negligence, for the settled statement plainly sets forth that defendant lawfully parked his car”].)

  • Hearing

WESTLAKE VILLAGE MARKETPLACE VS. WEST AMERICAN ROOFING, INC.

The Court issued its proposed Statement of Decision on August 3, 2018 and entered judgment on September 21, 2018. The first amended judgment was entered on October 22, 2018 in favor of Westlake Village Marketplace, LLC (Plaintiff) on the first cause of action for breach of contract against West American Roofing (Defendant). The principal sum of the judgment was $59,000 plus $1,215 in costs and $38,805 in attorneys’ fees.

  • Hearing

ANNIE PING JIANG ET AL VS DOCTORS BEST HOSPICE ET AL

(“Moving Defendants”) filed a proposed settled statement on appeal with the court, with proof of service by mail on Samuel and Samuel; Eugene S. Alkana; Michael Judah; Robert S. Robinson; and Deborah Morin, CSR. The proposed settled statement did not contain a hearing date. The court on August 25, 2020 set the hearing on the settled statement for September 29, 2020, directing Plaintiff to give notice to any interested parties in the Certificate of Mailing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANNIE PING JIANG ET AL VS DOCTORS BEST HOSPICE ET AL

.: BC573979 Hearing Date: 9/29/2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Proposed Settled Statement on Appeal of Appellant Michael Judah No Stay Pending Appeal As an initial matter, CCP § 917.4 provides: The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order appealed from directs the sale, conveyance or delivery of possession of real property which is in the possession or control of the appellant or the party ordered to sell, convey or deliver possession

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HELEN DUFFY VS VISEMER DE GELT LLC ET AL

Duffy was ordered to prepare, file and serve this proposed Statement of Decision by September 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

PATINO V. FAIR RIVAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

The Court conducted the Phase One bench trial on November 20, 21 and 26, 2019; issued a Proposed Statement of Decision (“PSOD”) on December 10, 2019; considered Patino’s written objections to the PSOD; and issued its Final Statement of Decision on December 31, 2019. ● On March 11, 2020, the Court entered its Order re Phase Two of Trial (“Phase Two Order”), finding that the Cross-Complaint by Faire Rivage against Patino “was fully resolved in Phase One and that entry of a separate judgment on the Cross-Complaint

  • Hearing

JUSTICE PROTECTION PROJECT VS. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC

DEF David Seal Miscellaneous Hearing (on Settled Statement) No tentative will be posted. Determination will be made after hearing.

  • Hearing

CHRISTOPHER ISLER V. TIM GILL

(See Defendant/Cross- Complainant Forster-Gill Inc.’s Request for Reconsideration/Clarification/Objections to [Proposed] Statement of Decision, 3:8-9 (the “Response”).) The parties have now filed their supplemental briefs. Defendants’ supplemental brief does not explain the source or calculation of the $47,944 figure that they cited in their Response, as requested.

  • Hearing

CHRISTOPHER ISLER V. TIM GILL

(See Defendant/Cross- Complainant Forster-Gill Inc.’s Request for Reconsideration/Clarification/Objections to [Proposed] Statement of Decision, 3:8-9 (the “Response”).) The parties have now filed their supplemental briefs. Defendants’ supplemental brief does not explain the source or calculation of the $47,944 figure that they cited in their Response, as requested.

  • Hearing

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

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

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

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.