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

101-125 of 251 results

XIN VS. LI

Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision DENIED on this ground. On 7/2/18, Defendants filed their objections to the proposed statement of decision. Defendants argue that they timely filed their objections under CRC 3.1590 (g), because the proposed statement of decision was served by email on 6/13/18. Defendants calculate that they had 15 days, plus 2 days for email service [CCP 1010.6 (a)(4)(B)], or until 7/2/18 within which to file their objections.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2018

XIN VS. LI

Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision DENIED on this ground. On 7/2/18, Defendants filed their objections to the proposed statement of decision. Defendants argue that they timely filed their objections under CRC 3.1590 (g), because the proposed statement of decision was served by email on 6/13/18. Defendants calculate that they had 15 days, plus 2 days for email service [CCP 1010.6 (a)(4)(B)], or until 7/2/18 within which to file their objections.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2018

JASBIR SINGH VS STEPHANIE CHING-YEE CHAN ET AL

The Court, having considered the evidence and reviewed closing and rebuttal briefs of the parties, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision. This tentative and proposed Statement of Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless, within 15 days hereafter, a party serves and files objections to the proposed Statement of Decision. I.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2018

RICARDO IBARRA VS PRECISION MOVING & STORAGE CORPORATION ET

Improper citation to CRC 8.137(b)(2) (What is the relevance of a settled statement procedure in this case?); 2. Improper reference to “respondents.” (No such party) 3. Improper reference to “decedents’ purported acts.” (Who are the decedents in this case?) 4. Erroneous claim that “none of the defendants to this action reside in the Los Angeles City.” (Chatsworth is part of the City of Los Angeles, where the defendant corporation has its principal place of business apparently.) 5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PANKAJ PATEL ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

The Court, having considered the stipulated fact, and read the briefs of each side and heard the arguments of counsel, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision. This tentative and proposed Statement of Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless, within 15 days hereafter, a party serves and files objections to the proposed Statement of Decision.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

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

Second, defendants argue that the proposed judgment fails to state that the court never issued a proposed statement of decision on 7/31/17 as required by CRC 3.1590 (k). But defendants they fail to adequately explain their argument. CRC 3.1590 (k) only provides that “The court MAY order a hearing on proposals or objections to a proposed statement of decision or the proposed judgment.” The plain language of this rule gives the court discretion whether or not to order a hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2018

ANDERSON VS. WAY WEST INC

Further discussion as to the proposed Statement of Decision and proposed judgment is required at the hearing on this matter.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - 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

    Sep 27, 2018

TECNO-ADVANCED INC VS LEGENDARY BUILDERS CORP ET AL

.: BC628705 PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW 8:30 a.m. September 24, 2018 Dept. 56 And Related Actions NOTICE TO COUNSEL Any objections to the proposed Statement of Decision pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1590(k), including proposed corrections thereto, shall be presented by the parties at or before the hearing on September 24, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

TECNO-ADVANCED INC VS LEGENDARY BUILDERS CORP ET AL

.: BC628705 PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW 1:30 p.m. September 24, 2018 Dept. 56 And Related Actions NOTICE TO COUNSEL Any objections to the proposed Statement of Decision pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1590(k), including proposed corrections thereto, shall be presented by the parties at or before the hearing on September 24, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF ACEY AND ANNETTE FLOYD FAMILY TRUST, DATED AUGUST 26, 1999

Meanwhile, on September 7, 2018, the 13th day of trial in the civil case, Judge O'Neill announced a tentative ruling from the bench and directed petitioner's counsel to prepare proposed statement of decision by October 5, 2018. Approve the additional $12,000 distribution to petitioner so long as it does not undermine trust purpose of acquiring "another real property of equal or similar value as replacement."

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

MAHVASH MAZAGANI VS HOUMAN MOGHADDAM ET AL

The appellant must serve and file a proposed statement in superior court within 30 days after filing its notice under CRC 8.137(b)(1). CRC 8.137(c). Within 20 days after the appellant serves the proposed statement, the respondent may file and serve proposed amendments under CRC 8.137(e).

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L MATHIS VS LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A L

The Court, having considered the evidence and read the arguments of counsel, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision. This tentative and proposed Statement of Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless, within 15 days hereafter, a party serves and files objections to the proposed Statement of Decision. I. BACKGROUND The Court in this case previously determined that Plaintiff Law Office of Marvin Mathis (“Plaintiff”) was entitled to proceed against Defendants Shaqwonne R.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

ABHIJIT PRASAD VS. BRAM FRIDHANDLER ET AL

Judge Vilardi's "ORDER APPOINTING CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATOR" and "TENTATIVE DECISION AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND TEMPORARY ORDER ON CHILD CUSTODY" disclose the absolute defense of quasi-judicial immunity. Dr. Fridhandler was appointed to act in a neutral-judicial fashion and aid in the custody determination. Mr. Prasad does not meaningfully distinguish Howard, which also arose out of a custody dispute.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

BRENES VS LOPEZ MCHUGH

Motion 2: Appellant's Request to Review and Correct Proposed Settled Statement. Moving Party Defendant Lopez McHugh. Responding Party Brenes. Tentative to be posted by Friday.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2018

BRENES VS LOPEZ MCHUGH

Ruling Motion 2 Defendant’s Request for Hearing to Review and Correct Proposed Settled Statement is GRANTED. Pursuant to CRC 8.137 (f), the court sets a hearing to correct the proposed Settled Statement for August 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in C26. On or before August 15, 2018, the parties shall submit a Joint Statement regarding the proposed Settled Statement. This hearing must be heard by the original Temporary Judge, because this motion is a continuance of the original motion. McCartney v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2018

MOON CHERIE ET AL VS THERESA DELIBERTO ET AL

On May 1, 2017, this court issued a Proposed Statement of Decision. On May 16, 2017, Pedroza filed Plaintiff’s Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision (“Plaintiff’s Objections”); CSK filed Defendant’s Request for Final Statement of Decision, and Proposal for Content Thereon. On June 19, 2017, this court issues its final statement of decision. In part, the decision noted that with respect to the alleged seating violations, “Pedroza dismissed the fifth cause of action with prejudice.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

  • Judge

    Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BONNIE DUBOFF VS LINDA SCHERMER ET AL

Therefore, because the proposed Statement of Decision for Phase One would necessarily be an interlocutory order, and because the parties have not stipulated to having the case be heard by two different judges, the Court finds that a mistrial is in order. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Schermer’s Request for Mistrial is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the April 5, 2018 Minute Order containing a proposed Statement of Decision finding on the standing issue in favor of Plaintiff Bonnie Duboff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

ANGUS MITCHELL VS SIAN MITCHELL

Petitioner notes that more than six months after Justice Sonenshine issued a proposed statement of decision in October 2017 as to the June-July 2017 trial on the issue of custody of the parties’ minor child, a final statement of decision has still not issued due in part to resolution of the 191 objections filed by Respondent, and that is just one of many substantive issues set to be determined by the temporary judge.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Dissolution

FRONTIER FASHION, INC. VS WECLY INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Defendant filed a Proposed Statement of Decision, and Plaintiff filed objections, jn part seeking additional facts be included as well as argument that Defendants were on constructive notice of the defect in the fire system and that such created a duty under Fire Code Secs. 901.7.4 and 901.7.5.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2018

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE, ETC VS. CHRISTOPHER MILLS, ET AL

As the parties had not ordered a court reporter, the Court ordered them to prepare a Settled Statement. On April 19, 2018, Defendant submitted a document titled “Joint Settled Statement” which consisted of the draft “Joint Settled Statement” prepared by Plaintiff (received by the Court on April 17, 2017) with changes made to it. Yellow highlighted statements represented additional comments requested by Defendants to which Plaintiff objected or disputed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

EUN SUG CHA VS PAULO HAN ET AL

The Court, having considered the evidence and read the arguments of counsel, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision. This tentative and proposed Statement of Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless, within 15 days hereafter, a party serves and files objections to the proposed Statement of Decision. I.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CENTER VS. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

All, save the last sentence, of subsection b in the proposed statement concerns facts and argument not raised at the hearing. Respondent/Appellant's corrected proposed statement modified subsection b, but it continues to contain facts and argument not raised at the hearing.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CENTER VS. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

All, save the last sentence, of subsection b in the proposed statement concerns facts and argument not raised at the hearing. Respondent/Appellant's corrected proposed statement modified subsection b, but it continues to contain facts and argument not raised at the hearing.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KINGS RIVER AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. KINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

proposed statement of decision or judgment.”

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 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.