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

MICHAEL PUCCI VS DEBORAH L UNDERWOOD ET AL

This list should only include proposed changes to facts and not to law or conclusions of law, which will be addressed at the hearing on this Proposed Statement of Decision, to be held on September 10, 2019. Dated this __ day of August, 2019 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2019

ROCHA V. MID VALLEY DISPOSAL.

Defendants’ proposed statement of material facts include the assertion that Plaintiff’s injuries were sustained in the scope of employment. (UMF 2.) However, by its terms, Labor Code §3600 applies only where each of the items in subdivisions (1) through (10) apply. As noted above, it is the Defendants’ burden to show that each element of the affirmative defense applies. (Consumer Cause, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 468.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

EDUARDO FLORES VS. SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ROA 46), and a few days later requested a settled statement. ROA 49. A judgment of dismissal was entered April 12, 2017. ROA 52-53. By Minute Order filed April 25, 2017 (ROA 55-56), the court ordered defense counsel to prepare a proposed settled statement. Defense counsel complied, and submitted the proposed settled statement on May 16, 2017 with a proof of service dated the previous day. ROA 59.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ASSOCIATION FOR L A DEPUTY SHERIFFS ET AL VS COUNTY OF L A

The Court further orders the parties to a Mandatory Settlement Conference on a date to be determined at the hearing on this Proposed Statement of Decision set for August 26, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

BUSCH V. T. BEAR INVESTMENTS, LLC

The motion of the defendants to use a settled statement on appeal is GRANTED. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137(b)(2).) Rule 8.137 provides that the appellant “must serve and file in superior court with its notice designating the record on appeal under rule 8.121 a motion to use a settled statement instead of a reporter’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137 (b)(2) [italics added].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

JAMES JANG VS CATWALK TO SIDEWALK INC ET AL

.: 50 [TENTATIVE AND PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL [TENTATIVE AND PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL This matter came on for trial on May 15-17 and 20-21, 2019, in Department 50 of the above-entitled Court before the Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet, sitting without a jury. The Court, having considered the evidence and read the arguments of counsel, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FRANCISCO DIAZ VS. MARIA LUNA

. _____________________________________________ The following is the Court's tentative decision concerning the objections filed by plaintiff, Francisco Diaz, as to the Court's Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision and Judgment filed June 21, 2019: The Court OVERRULES the objections to the Proposed Statement of Decision and Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

CUSTODIO CERVANTES VS SUPER SECURE PACKAGING SUPPLIES

.: 50 [TENTATIVE AND PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL [TENTATIVE AND PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL This matter came on for trial on April 24-26, 2019, in Department 50 of the above-entitled Court before the Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet, sitting without a jury. The Court, having considered the evidence and read the arguments of counsel, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

THOMAS JAMES VS LEAVITT GROUP AGENCY OF SAN DIEGO INC

Each side filed objections to the other's proposed statement of decision on or about June 28, 2018. (RFJN, Ex. 5.) The trial court issued a minute order requesting both sides to respond to a hypothetical question. (RFJN, Ex. 6.) On September 7, 2018, James and defendants each filed their respective briefs related to the question posed by the trial court. (RFJN, Ex. 7.) On October 17, 2018, the trial court filed and served its "tentative" statement of decision. (RFJN, Ex. 8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DREAMSTATION INC VS RICKY NOH ET AL

If no objection is filed within the time prescribed by California Rule of Court 3.1590, the proposed statement of decision will be become final. Date: _____________ _________________________________ GREGORY W. ALARCON JUDGE OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC VS BEVERLY D SIMS ET AL

Prevailing party should file a proposed judgment within 10 days consistent with the proposed statement of decision within 10 days. Date: _________________________________________ Gregory W. Alarcon Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MURRAY GOLDSTEIN VS JUDY EGAN ET AL

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the Proposed Statement of Decision on Phase One of the Trial, filed April 1, 2013, and of the Court of Appeal decision in Goldstein v. Egan, B267790, filed May 30, 2018. The request is GRANTED. Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint filed in this action on June 21, 2011 and the FAC filed on March 18, 2019. The request is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DONNA SMITH VS SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET INC ET AL

Plaintiff filed no opposition or objections to Defendant’s proposed statement of undisputed material facts. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant is ordered to give notice, and to file a proof of service of same. DATED: June 5, 2019 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

TRI COUNTIES ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Each of the topics identified in the proposals and principal controverted issues is addressed in the Proposed Statement of Decision. The Court concludes there is no need for any further elaboration concerning the findings, reasoning, and conclusions stated in the Proposed Statement of Decision. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HIYAMA V. RIVERA

As pointed out by Defendant, each party states it would have refused to sign off on the other’s proposed statement of decision such that in the end, two proposed statements would have been submitted, and the Court would have signed one. That is the situation that arose here, with each side submitting its own proposed statement of decision, without the other party’s having signed off on it. The Court signed Defendant’s proposed statement of decision.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CLAUDIA BELLO V. LANCE SCOTT, ET AL.

(See In re Rodrigo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1179, 1183 [proposed statement became final after period for objection had elapsed].) on a Sunday. Section 10 designates every Sunday as a holiday; and section 12a provides that should a deadline for completing an act fall on a holiday, then the period is extended to the next day that is not a holiday. Bello’s memorandum of points and authorities was therefore timely.

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

DUANE BAXLEY V. BILLIE JO RALLS

Based on the evidence submitted, Judge Federman denied Plaintiff’s request to set aside or vacate the Stipulated Judgment4. 4 On April 18, Plaintiff filed “objections to the proposed statement of decision,” wherein he essentially reargues his positions concerning the Stipulated Judgment. On April 26, Defendant filed a response to the objections, arguing they should be denied. The Family Court has yet to rule on Plaintiff’s objections. No further hearings are set in the Family Court Action. Legal Standard.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

PHAM V. WT CAPITAL LENDER SERVICES, INC.

It seems that neither Chicago nor SCME’s escrow agent (Escrow Legends) collected or recorded the Edwards reconveyance – even though the settled statement shows satisfaction of the Edwards lien. Seven years later, SCME conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure to take the subject property from Fuller after he stopped paying on the loan. Plaintiff, a very seasoned real estate professional, was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale, and acquired title via a quit claim deed.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

EDUARDO FLORES VS. SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ROA 46), and a few days later requested a settled statement. ROA 49. A judgment of dismissal was entered April 12, 2017. ROA 52-53. By Minute Order filed April 25, 2017 (ROA 55-56), the court ordered defense counsel to prepare a proposed settled statement. Defense counsel complied, and submitted the proposed settled statement on May 16, 2017 with a proof of service dated the previous day. ROA 59.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

EDUARDO FLORES VS. SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ROA 46), and a few days later requested a settled statement. ROA 49. A judgment of dismissal was entered April 12, 2017. ROA 52-53. By Minute Order filed April 25, 2017 (ROA 55-56), the court ordered defense counsel to prepare a proposed settled statement. Defense counsel complied, and submitted the proposed settled statement on May 16, 2017 with a proof of service dated the previous day. ROA 59.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

EDUARDO FLORES VS. SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ROA 46), and a few days later requested a settled statement. ROA 49. A judgment of dismissal was entered April 12, 2017. ROA 52-53. By Minute Order filed April 25, 2017 (ROA 55-56), the court ordered defense counsel to prepare a proposed settled statement. Defense counsel complied, and submitted the proposed settled statement on May 16, 2017 with a proof of service dated the previous day. ROA 59.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

EDUARDO FLORES VS. SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ROA 46), and a few days later requested a settled statement. ROA 49. A judgment of dismissal was entered April 12, 2017. ROA 52-53. By Minute Order filed April 25, 2017 (ROA 55-56), the court ordered defense counsel to prepare a proposed settled statement. Defense counsel complied, and submitted the proposed settled statement on May 16, 2017 with a proof of service dated the previous day. ROA 59.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

EDUARDO FLORES VS. SHARP GROSSMONT HOSPITAL

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ROA 46), and a few days later requested a settled statement. ROA 49. A judgment of dismissal was entered April 12, 2017. ROA 52-53. By Minute Order filed April 25, 2017 (ROA 55-56), the court ordered defense counsel to prepare a proposed settled statement. Defense counsel complied, and submitted the proposed settled statement on May 16, 2017 with a proof of service dated the previous day. ROA 59.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MARK GLAZER VS. GABRIELLA LOOS

The Clerk shall give notice of this tentative decision and proposed statement of decision and judgment.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

STEPHEN M. COOK VS. STEWART TURNER

In sum and substance, the objections and proposals assail the findings, reasoning and conclusions reached by the Court as expressed in the Tentative Decision and Proposed Statement of Decision and Judgment. The Court is satisfied that its findings, reasoning and conclusions need not be modified except as set forth below.

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 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.