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

76-100 of 251 results

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

ORANGE HOLDINGS, TWO, LLC V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

On 11/25/18, the court issued its proposed Statement of Decision. An objection was filed by Orange Holdings on 11/26/18. There were no objections by Board. On 12/26/18, the court issued its final Statement of Decision.

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

MORI VS MURDOCK

Defendant’s Motion for an Order for a Settled Statement

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

MORI VS MURDOCK

Defendant’s Motion for an Order for a Settled Statement The court is inclined to place a statement regarding its ruling on the motion to set aside the jury waiver in the pending Statement of Decision. The court is inclined to deny this motion, as the rules do not require a motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

ANGELA HICKS VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CA STATE UNIVERSITY

A record of the oral proceedings may consist of one of the following: (1) a report’s transcript (rule 8.130); (2) an agreed statement (rule 8.134); or (3) a settled statement (rule 8.137). (CRC Rule 8.120(b).) “An appellant intending to proceed under [rule 8.137] 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.” (CRC Rule 8.137(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

NOARUS PROPERTIES INC VS CRIMSON CALIFORNIA PIPELINE L P ET

Instead, Noarus only argues that Crimson’s proposed statement of decision in response to the request for a statement of decision included findings of fact. This does not weigh in favor of finding that the precise issues posed in the request for statement of decision are questions of fact. Accordingly, Noarus’s motion is DENIED on this independent basis. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JASBIR SINGH VS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN ET AL

.: BC519223 (Lead case consolidated for trial with SC122329) [TENTATIVE AND PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION BY THE COURT AFTER TRIAL OF THE BIFURCATED PHASE TWO – ATTORNEY FEES ONLY This matter came on for trial of the bifurcated phase two on the afternoons of June 27-29, July 2-3, 5, 10-12, 20, 26-27, 2018, in Department 50 of the above-entitled Court before the Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet, sitting without a jury.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

LOUIS P. BARBACCIA, SR., ET AL. V. GBR MAGIC SANDS MHP, LLC

Aaron Persky) in connection with the 1963 Lease Cancellation Action, (2) the “[Further Revised Proposed] Statement of Decision After Court Trial” prepared in connection with the 1963 Lease Cancellation Action, (3) an email from Robert Williams to Plaintiffs’ counsel, and (4) an email from GBR’s counsel to Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (d) and (h).

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

CZECH & HOWELL, APC V. WILLIAMS

Under C.R.C. 8.137(b)(1), he may thus elect in his Notice Designating the Record on Appeal to use a settled statement as the record of the oral proceedings, and therein specify the date of each oral proceeding to be included in the settled statement and whether each such proceeding was reported. He thus does not need to proceed by motion here. He will instead have 10 days to so act per CRC 8.137(b)(2)(B). Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent Czech & Howell, APC is to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

CI-IANHT REATREY KEO VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, ET AL

Procedural note: On January, 11, 2019, the court directed Plaintiff to submit a proposed order confirming the tentative decision that Plaintiff had 30 days to submit a proposed statement on appeal, The proposed order has not been submitted. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 1.10(B) to contest the tentative decision.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

HURD, ET AL VS. BRESKA, ET AL

This matter is on calendar for review regarding status and to discuss the Proposed Statement of Decision and Proposed Judgment. An appearance by the parties is required on today’s calendar.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

HURD, ET AL VS. BRESKA, ET AL

This matter is on calendar for review regarding status and to discuss the Proposed Statement of Decision and Proposed Judgment. An appearance by the parties is required on today’s calendar.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

GANDOLFO DBA CENTRAL VALLEY HEALTH CARE V. ZAIDNOMAN ET AL.

Explanation: On September 19, 2018, after service of the court’s proposed statement of decision, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs. On October 1, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation deeming the prematurely filed Memorandum of Costs timely filed. See ¶ 6 of the Stipulation. On November 13, 2018, notice of entry of judgment was filed. On November 26, 2018, Defendant filed a motion seeking to tax costs; specifically, the amount of $29,446.44 listed at line 13 as “interest pursuant to CC § 33289.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

DOE V. FUGITT

The court will hear argument regarding Respondent’s Objections to the Proposed Statement of Decision (filed on 12-13-18). Unless the parties disagree, Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (filed on 10-16-18) is MOOT since the court heard the merits regarding Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus on 10-30-18.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

HAAS VS. VOORWOOD COMPANY

This matter is on calendar for review regarding discussion of the status and timing of the Proposed Statement of Decision and Proposed Judgment. The parties are ordered to appear.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

STARCEVIC VS. PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES INC

., Trustee of the Roski Community Property Trust Dated November 1, 1987 is directed to serve and submit a proposed statement of decision in accordance with this decision within 30 days. Rule 3.1590(c)(3) & (f). 1. Lucille A. Tran was originally named as a plaintiff but did not want to be an active participant. By agreement, Tran is treated as though she were a defendant. ROA # 90. Tran's default was entered in September, 2015. ROA # 144.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

STARCEVIC VS. PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES INC

., Trustee of the Roski Community Property Trust Dated November 1, 1987 is directed to serve and submit a proposed statement of decision in accordance with this decision within 30 days. Rule 3.1590(c)(3) & (f). 1. Lucille A. Tran was originally named as a plaintiff but did not want to be an active participant. By agreement, Tran is treated as though she were a defendant. ROA # 90. Tran's default was entered in September, 2015. ROA # 144.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BUSTOS V FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff’s Proposed Statement of the Case dated May 16, 2018, attached a Exhibit 3 to the Dye declaration--GRANT, 4. Defendant’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) and Plaintiff’s Responses including the verification, attached as Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively, to the Dy declaration--GRANT, 5. Plaintiff’s admission in his deposition in this case at p. 104:14-18, attached a Exhibit 6 to the Dye declaration--GRANT 6.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

STARCEVIC VS. PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES INC

., Trustee of the Roski Community Property Trust Dated November 1, 1987 is directed to serve and submit a proposed statement of decision in accordance with this decision within 30 days. Rule 3.1590(c)(3) & (f). 1. Lucille A. Tran was originally named as a plaintiff but did not want to be an active participant. By agreement, Tran is treated as though she were a defendant. ROA # 90. Tran's default was entered in September, 2015. ROA # 144.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PETITION OF JOHN WANG RE: ESTATE OF YEN WANG

., proposed statement of decision issued by10/2/13 in the Underlying Matter); Granted as to Exhibit “12” (i.e., writ of attachment issued in the Underlying Matter on 8/28/12) and Granted as to Exhibit “13” (i.e., case summary report from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for the Underlying Matter, printed 7/26/18). “[T]he interest of a natural person in a dwelling may not be sold under this division to enforce a money judgment except pursuant to a court order for sale…” CCP § 704.740(a).

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

MAHVASH MAZAGANI VS HOUMAN MOGHADDAM ET AL

.: BC658766 Hearing Date: December 7, 2018 [TENTATIVE] order RE: Settled Statement (CAL Rules of Court, Rule 8.137) BACKGROUND In the complaint, Plaintiff Mahvash Mazgani (“Mahvash”) alleges that Defendants Houman Moghaddam aka Kevin Moda (“Moda”) and Marcos Alonzo (“Alonzo”) distributed flyers and created a website that was disparaging to Plaintiff and her business, Mazgani Social Services, Inc.. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for defamation per se and false light.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2018

EMERALD AERO LLC VS. KAPLAN

The above ruling will serve as the Court's proposed statement of decision, subject to a party's objection. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(c)(1). The controverted issues not addressed in the above ruling were determined by the Court to have no bearing on its decision.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CECILIA DUCKWORTH VS WEST HOLLYWOOD HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CE

It is the Court’s practice at the Final Status Conference to ask if the parties have ordered a court reporter; if the parties indicate that they are not ordering a court reporter, the Court discusses with the parties how a settled statement will be prepared in the absence of a trial transcript. Further, if the parties indicate that they are hiring a court reporter, the Court’s practice is to indicate that it would appreciate the reporter to use RealTime. However, the Court has never made any such order.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2018

READYLINK, INC. VS. INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

TENTATIVE RULING: On 10/22/18, Plaintiff ReadyLink Inc. lodged its 2nd proposed judgment and proposed statement of decision with the court. This updated document incorporates amendments set forth in this court’s 10/3/18 tentative ruling. Now Defendants Integrated Healthcare Holdings Inc., WMC - SA Inc., WMC - A Inc., Chapman Medical Center Inc., and Coastal Communities Hospital Inc. raise the following objections, filed on 10/23/18. ReadyLink filed its Reply on 10/24/18.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendant seeks $1,453.50”) that there was no court reporter at trial, and that the matter proceeded by way of settled statement. (Hannah Reply Decl., ¶ 3(1).) With respect to plaintiff’s second challenge (i.e., “[w]ork performed on the proposed statement of the case which was mostly a review of Plaintiff’s work.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2018

  « first    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.