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

201-225 of 250 results

WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. MARK WEINER

Several post-trial submissions were also required regarding the proposed statement of decision and the defendants' motion to vacate. Plaintiff now seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $75,187.50, representing 256.1 hours of attorney time pursuant to Civil Code § 1717, plus $1,500 for the time spent on this instant fee motion. In total, Plaintiff is seeking $76,687.50 as the prevailing party in an action on a contract.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2016

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

SULLIVAN VS SOUTHWINDS SCHOOL

Furthermore, and more to the point, defendants proposed statement of undisputed material facts does not address and establish all of the possible theories that plaintiffs' negligence claim is based upon. So, even if the court were to do a detailed analysis of the theories of negligence addressed in the proposed statement of undisputed material facts, it would still leave unaddressed other theories of liability, and the motion must therefore be denied.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2015

IN RE THE ROBERT L NIFONG REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 5/22/2001

Nozzi's motion to allow a settled statement on appeal. The court grants Mr. Nifong's request to have the settled statement include all of the testimonial materials set forth in his October 21, 2015 filing. gmr

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2015

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE ROBERT L NIFONG REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 5/22/2001

Nozzi's motion to allow a settled statement on appeal. The court grants Mr. Nifong's request to have the settled statement include all of the testimonial materials set forth in his October 21, 2015 filing. gmr

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2015

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE ROBERT L NIFONG REVOCABLE TRUST DATED 5/22/2001

Nozzi's motion to allow a settled statement on appeal. The court grants Mr. Nifong's request to have the settled statement include all of the testimonial materials set forth in his October 21, 2015 filing. gmr

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2015

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

DEBRA CORRAL ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

The City’s objections having been overruled, the court’s proposed statement of decision on liability shall become the final statement of decision.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2015

REID V. DYNAPAC HARVESTING

Accordingly, a more detailed recitation of the facts and court findings is deemed unnecessary absent a request for a settled statement of facts for purposes of appeal.” (Statement of Decision, p. 3, lines 10-16.) In fact, the Court considered all of the evidence produced during the trial, including the evidence that Aleen Reid was initially willing to settle the lawsuit without involving the trucking company that paid the lion’s share of the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2015

  • County

    San Luis Obispo County, CA

KLEIN VS. WELLS FARGO BANK

Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Prepare a Settled Statement is granted.

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2015

AMERICAN FIRE RECOVERY VS. KEN MCKNIGHT

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590(g) provides that the proper time for a party to file objections to the proposed statement of decision or judgment is "within 15 days after the proposed statement of decision and judgment have been served." Here, the proposed statement of decision was served November 24, 2014, after which Defendants filed objections on December 5, 2014.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2015

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NANCY BAIRD AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. BETTY T. YEE STATE CONTROLLER

In connection with such hearing, Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed statement regarding class notice and a proposed notice to class members pursuant to Rule of Court 3.766.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2014

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

NANCY BAIRD AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. BETTY T. YEE STATE CONTROLLER

In connection with such hearing, Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed statement regarding class notice and a proposed notice to class members pursuant to Rule of Court 3.766.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2014

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

VASILIKI SERVETA VS. FINANCE AMERICA, LLC C/O MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ET AL

Pltf Vasiliki Serveta'S Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn To Use Settled Statement Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, December 26, 2013, line 1. PLAINTIFF VASILIKI SERVETA's Motion To Use Settled Statement DENIED. Moving party failed to sustain burden under CRC 8.137 (a)(2)(C). = (501/HMD)

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2013

VASILIKI SERVETA VS. FINANCE AMERICA, LLC C/O MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ET AL

Pltf Vasiliki Serveta'S Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn To Use Settled Statement Matter on calendar for Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Line 2: PLAINTIFF VASILIKI SERVETA'S Motion To Use Settled Statement Transferred to Department 501, the Real Property Court, to be heard on December 26, 2013 at 9:30 am. (See SFLR 8.10.) Defendants are given the opportunity to comply with Local Rule 2.6B.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF LESTER G MOORE

Salzwedel did raise a valid procedural objection to the earlier proposed statement of decision and the proposed judgment, resulting in this court's $3835.58 adjustment in Mr. Salzwedel's favor; now reflected in both documents. After such adjustment was made, however, the court concurs with the position set forth in the opposition that no viable basis for granting a new trial has been articulated. The new trial motion is denied. gmr

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2013

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF LESTER G MOORE

Salzwedel did raise a valid procedural objection to the earlier proposed statement of decision and the proposed judgment, resulting in this court's $3835.58 adjustment in Mr. Salzwedel's favor; now reflected in both documents. After such adjustment was made, however, the court concurs with the position set forth in the opposition that no viable basis for granting a new trial has been articulated. The new trial motion is denied. gmr

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2013

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF LESTER G MOORE

Salzwedel did raise a valid procedural objection to the earlier proposed statement of decision and the proposed judgment, resulting in this court's $3835.58 adjustment in Mr. Salzwedel's favor; now reflected in both documents. After such adjustment was made, however, the court concurs with the position set forth in the opposition that no viable basis for granting a new trial has been articulated. The new trial motion is denied. gmr

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2013

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

MICHAEL BEAL ET AL VS. ROYAL OAK BAR ET AL

Hearing To Certify Settled Statement Set for hearing on Tuesday, October 1, 2013, Line 1. Hearing To Certify Settled Statement. Hearing required. =(302/MJM)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2013

MICHAEL BEAL ET AL VS. ROYAL OAK BAR ET AL

Settlement Hearing (Settled Statement Due: 7/23/13; Proposed Amendments Due: 8/06/13) Matter on calendar for Monday, August 19, 2013, Line 1, Settlement Hearing. Hearing required. If they have not done so already, counsel for Plaintiffs is requested to send an electronic copy of DeWitt M. Lacy's Proposed Settled Statement filed July 23, 2013 (in Word document if possible). The documents should be sent by email to [email protected] with a copy to all others as soon as possible. =(302/MJM)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2013

MICHAEL BEAL ET AL VS. ROYAL OAK BAR ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Prepare A Settled Statement; Matter on Calendar for Monday, July 22, 2013, Line 3, PLAINTIFFs MICHAEL BEAL and ASHLEY JACKSON's Motion To Prepare A Settled Statement. Hearing required. =(302/MJM)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2013

MICHAEL BEAL ET AL VS. ROYAL OAK BAR ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Prepare A Settled Statement; Matter on calendar for Tuesday, June 25, 2013, Line 17, PLAINTIFFs MICHAEL BEAl & ASHLEY JACKSON's Motion To Prepare A Settled Statement. Hearing required. Plaintiffs shall provide a proof of service of the Motion to Prepare Settled Statement at the hearing. If Plaintiffs present a timely proof of service, the Court is inclined to continue the hearing to allow Defendants to oppose on the merits. =(302/MJM)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2013

MICHAEL BEAL ET AL VS. ROYAL OAK BAR ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Prepare A Settled Statement; Set for hearing on Friday, June 14, 2013, Line 7, PLAINTIFFS MICHAEL BEAL AND ASHLEY JACKSON'S Motion To Prepare A Settled Statement; Continued to June 25, 2013 to give the moving parties the opportunity to comply with Local Rule 2.6B. The Court does not have a copy of the moving papers and they are not scanned on the Court's Register of Actions.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2013

COALITION FOR ADEQUATE REVIEW VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed statement of decision which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must bring the proposed statement of decision to the hearing or email it to [email protected] prior to the hearing even if the motion is not opposed or the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/RAK)

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2013

MIKE MAGERS VS. BARRY PAVAN

Assuming this to be the case, the Magers argue that the Pavans' acquiescence to the proposed statement of decision and proposed judgment, without challenging the attorneys' fees award referenced in them, thereby waived Pavans' ability to argue that Magers are not entitled to such an award. Instead, Magers contend that the Pavans are limited to challenging only the amount of the award, not the legal propriety and merits of same. The Court rejects this argument.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2013

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MIKE MAGERS VS. BARRY PAVAN

Assuming this to be the case, the Magers argue that the Pavans' acquiescence to the proposed statement of decision and proposed judgment, without challenging the attorneys' fees award referenced in them, thereby waived Pavans' ability to argue that Magers are not entitled to such an award. Instead, Magers contend that the Pavans are limited to challenging only the amount of the award, not the legal propriety and merits of same. The Court rejects this argument.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2013

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN SCHMIDT ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

The proposed statement of facts begins with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Deputy’s observations of petitioner which led to the stop and detention and ultimately to Schmidt’s arrest. (Makler decl., ¶ 4.) The proposed statement of facts also includes details of Schmidt’s detention and of forensic evidence supporting the arrest. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2013

  « 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.