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

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

ROSTACK INVESTMENTS INC VS ANGELA C SABELLA

.: BC428298 REVISED PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION ON PHASE ONE OF TRIAL Dept. 56 Hearing Date (By Court Call): 3/27/20 Time: 10 a.m. PARTIES: Plaintiff: Rostack Investments, Inc. (“Rostack”) Defendant: Angela C. Sabella aka Angela Chen (“Defendant” or “Angela”[1]). The Trial Phase One of the trial in this case was held on October 1, 2, 3 and 4, and November 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26, 2019 in Department 56 of the above-referenced Court as a bench trial before Judge Holly J. Fujie.

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2020

MITRA RASHTI VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Counsel are ordered to meet and confer and the court will set a date for determination of the settled statement.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY VS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY INC ET AL

The proposed statement of stipulated facts was ultimately provided by Federal on January 29, 2020. Prior to that time, Western had served objections to the depositions on two occasions, and had prepared and served full responses to the interrogatories and requests for admission, and had produced the entire non-privileged portion of its claims and underwriting files.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ARMSTRONG ASSOCIATES INC VS A R J CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

Filing and Motion Fees (Item 1 of Cost Bill) (a) $9.85 for [Proposed] Statement of Decision and Proof of Service – Rejected 11/08/19 (Attachment 1g of Cost Bill, item “l”) (b) $10.75 for [Proposed] Judgment – Rejected 12/05/19 (Attachment 1g of Cost Bill, item “p”) 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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

    Jan 31, 2020

BERIONES VS IMH ASSETS CORP

In correcting and/or modifying a proposed settled statement, "[t]he trial court judge must not eliminate the appellant's specification of grounds of appeal from the proposed statement." (CRC 1.137(f)(5).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ST GEORGE OF ANTIOCH ORTHODOX CHURCH BY AND THROUGH ITS AGENT M GRANT REAL ESTATE INC VS SAN DIEGO MORTGAGE AND REAL ESTATE INC

As directed by the Court, Plaintiff prepared and submitted a proposed Statement of Decision ("SOD"). ROA # 217. Defendant interposed objections to the proposed SOD. ROA # 224. Plaintiff filed and served a response to Defendant's objections. ROA # 226. Defendant's objections are OVERRULED. The Court will sign the proposed SOD - ROA # 217 - at the Status Conference.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Dec 20, 2019

ORCHIDS DE ORO INC VS RODEO PARTNERSHIP

On November 4, 2019, the Court issued a tentative and proposed statement of decision, finding in favor of Rodeo on both the declaratory relief action brought by Orchids and Rodeo’s unlawful detainer action. Orchids now moves for a stay of the unlawful detainer judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1176 pending an appeal by Orchids. Rodeo opposes. Discussion “An appeal taken by the defendant shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

THE CLAREMONT COLLEGES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Consortium’s and Claremont Graduate University’s Request for Statement of Decision or, Alternatively, Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision’ Proposal Regarding Content of Statement of Decision filed November 20, 2018 in the CST Action); GRANTED as to Exhibit 6 (i.e., CST’s Response to Request for Statement of Decision filed November 30, 2018 in the CST Action); GRANTED as to Exhibit 7 (i.e., CST’s Objections to the Proposed Statement of Decision filed December 10, 2018 in the CST Action); GRANTED as

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL M. NESTER VS SUZANNE E. WINDUS

MOTION FOR SETTLED STATEMENT [CRC Rule 8.137.] Date: 11/15/19 Case: Michael M. Nester v. Suzanne E. Windus (EC 068118) TENTATIVE RULING: With respect to plaintiff/appellant Michael Nester’s Motion for Settled Statement As to Proceedings on May 28, 2019, the Court finds that the proposed statement does not contain material required under CRC Rule 8.137(d). Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 8.137 (f)(3)(A), the Court orders plaintiff/appellant Michael M. Nester to prepare a new proposed statement.

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Following the trial held in October 2018, the Court issued its Proposed Statement of Decision on April 5, 2019. The Court found Defendant was entitled to judgment in its favor, and that Plaintiff was to take nothing by reason of Complaint. (Proposed Statement of Decision, p. 37, ¶Q.) On April 18, 2019, Defendant filed its Memorandum of Costs wherein it seeks $15,270.20 in costs. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike, or in the alternative, Tax Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DUFF VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC

Preliminary Matters The Court had originally directed Jaguar to submit a proposed statement of decision ("SOD") in accordance with the Rules of Court. ROA #503. The Court assumed it would also receive a proposed judgment. It did not. While plaintiff submitted objections to the proposed SOD, he, too, did not submit a proposed judgment. Thus, plaintiff is now directed to prepare, serve, and submit the proposed judgment within 10 days of this order. There is a scrivener's error in the SOD.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GETZ V. SERRANO EL DORADO OWNER’S ASSOC.

statement conforms with the Rule 3.766(d)(1) requirement for a brief explanation of the case; the HOA statement that reimbursement for class counsel cost and fees will be made by the court from the class members’ recovery is incorrect in that the court will award fees and costs separately as provided for by statute; the statements in the HOA proposed class notice that threatens the class member owners with a special assessment to pay for any judgment entered against the HOA lacks evidentiary support and is

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2019

TEDRA SIMONE WHITAKER VS SPECTRUM REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Appeals frequently proceed using a settled statement; the lack of a court reporter does not prevent an appeal. Plaintiff has raised no argument regarding privity of all the defendants in this action with the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint The motion is taken off calendar as moot.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RYAN ROTHSCHILD ET AL VS COLLEEN WERNER ET AL

On March 26, 2019, the Court issued a proposed statement of decision, which became the Court’s final statement of decision as no parties filed any objections. On May 21, 2019, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiffs. On July 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their memorandum of costs. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to recover their attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the lease. On September 12, 2019, Defendant filed her opposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SALMA MIKHAIL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE EZZAT & SALMA MIKHAIL LIVING TRUST 2006 DATED APRIL 11, 2006 VS. BABLOT

Moving parties also ask that the Court adopt their revised proposed statement of decision as its own. The Bablots contend that the Court’s minute should be entered as a final interim order because the issues involved have been completely adjudicated by the Court, citing Koshak v. Malek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1545.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

MICHAEL PUCCI VS DEBORAH L UNDERWOOD ET AL

After both parties rested, final argument was conducted by brief and a Proposed Statement of Decision was issued on or about August 23, 2019. The matter was taken under submission after the hearing on the Proposed Statement of Decision, which was held on September 10, 2019. THE PLEADINGS On May 3, 2016, MP, both individually and derivatively on behalf of Glovebrush Corporation (“GB”) filed a complaint against DU, her father LS and her company, Dazzle, with GB as a nominal defendant, as LASC Case No.

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2019

  « first    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 load this page.