On April 11, 2022 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nichols Oliver J.,
and
Nichols Oliver V.,
for Small Claims (Limited Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 1A
22STSC01374 June 7, 2022
OLIVER J. NICHOLS vs OLIVER V. NICHOLS 10:00 AM
Judge Pro Tem: Mary Park CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: Tonsha Kelley ERM: Electronically Recorded
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Castro-Ramos
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Oliver J. Nichols
For Defendant(s): Oliver V. Nichols
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Non-Jury Trial
All parties in court having been advised verbally and via posted notices, and there being no
objections, agree that/are deemed to have agreed that Mary Park, an attorney, who is a member
of the State Bar of California and who is qualified in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the
Constitution of the State of California, may, as Temporary Judge, preside over this hearing/try
this case.
The Cause is called for trial.
The parties are sworn and testify.
the parties submit evidence for the court to review. All exhibits are returned to the parties in open
court this date.
The Court having reviewed all evidence rules as follows:
The Court finds it unfortunate when there are disputes between family members; especially,
between father and son. It is clear that there is mutual respect for each other although there may
be differences of opinion regarding life issues.
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff suffered a loss of personal items when he was away on
vacation in Mexico. However, the absence of a physical break in does not prove by a
preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) that Defendant stole personal items and cash
from Plaintiff's vehicle.
Plaintiff testified he entrusted Defendant with a spare key to his vehicle, which demonstrates that
at the time, Plaintiff believed Defendant would keep the spare key for safe keeping. Plaintiff also
testified that he usually does not leave high value personal property in his glove compartment but
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
June 07, 2022
Case Filing Date
April 11, 2022
Category
Small Claims (Limited Jurisdiction)
Status
Judgment - contested
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 1A 22STSC01374 June 7, 2022 OLIVER J. NICHOLS vs OLIVER V. NICHOLS 10:00 AM Judge Pro Tem: Mary Park CSR: None Judicial Assistant: Tonsha Kelley ERM: Electronically Recorded Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: Castro-Ramos APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Oliver J. Nichols For Defendant(s): Oliver V. Nichols NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Non-Jury Trial All parties in court having been advised verbally and via posted notices, and there being no objections, agree that/are deemed to have agreed that Mary Park, an attorney, who is a member of the State Bar of California and who is qualified in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of California, may, as Temporary Judge, preside over this hearing/try this case. The Cause is called for trial. The parties are sworn and testify. the parties submit evidence for the court to review. All exhibits are returned to the parties in open court this date. The Court having reviewed all evidence rules as follows: The Court finds it unfortunate when there are disputes between family members; especially, between father and son. It is clear that there is mutual respect for each other although there may be differences of opinion regarding life issues. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff suffered a loss of personal items when he was away on vacation in Mexico. However, the absence of a physical break in does not prove by a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) that Defendant stole personal items and cash from Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff testified he entrusted Defendant with a spare key to his vehicle, which demonstrates that at the time, Plaintiff believed Defendant would keep the spare key for safe keeping. Plaintiff also testified that he usually does not leave high value personal property in his glove compartment but Minute Order Page 1 of 2