On September 12, 2007 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Robertson, Wade Anthony,
and
California Department Of Motor Vehicles,
Department Of Motor Vehicles, An Agency Of The,
Nikzi, T.,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
TEAC
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-26-2008 12:35 pm
Case Number: CPF-07-507652
Filing Date: Feb-26-2008 12:33
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02036686
JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT
DE ANTHONY ROBERTSON VS. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AN AGENCY OF
001002036686
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O, Box 70550 * OAKLAND, CA 94612-0550
wo on Aw bY N
Now Pnre = = es Se eos srs
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attomey General of the State of California J
MIGUEL A. NERI & D
FIEL D. TIGNO Francisco County SuperiothGer,
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General nt
DAVID A. CARRILLO, State Bar No. 177856 FEB 2 6 2008
Deputy Attomey General
GORDO
1515 Clay Street, 20" Floor IN PARK-LI
P.O. Box 70550 Bye ; Clerk
Oakland, CA 94612-0550 uty Clark
Telephone: (510) 622-2215
Fax: (510) 622-2121
Attorneys for Respondent
California Department of Motor Vehicles
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
= Case No. 07-507652
WADE ANTHONY ROBERTSON,
t
Petitioner, JUDGMENT
AND-ORDERDENYING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, an
agency of the State of California, and T. NIKZI,
Driver Safety Officer of the Department ofMotor | Date: 26 Feb 2008
Vehicles, Time: 0930
Dept: 302
Respondents. Judge: Honorable Patrick J. Mahoney
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
ee EE EET 8 TE TSCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2
&
a
g
g
S
3
<
Oo
4
°
°
a
Ss
&
s
a
9
a
~
wan aA uw & YN
This traditional mandate proceeding came on regularly for hearing on February 26, 2008 at
9:30 a.m. in Department 302 of the above-referenced court. Deputy Attorney General David A.
Carrillo appeared for respondent. Ronald A. Jackson, Esq. appeared for petitioner.
After considering the evidence and argument submitted by counsel, and good cause
appearing, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows.
1. The petition for writ of mandate is denied. The undisputed evidence is that the
communication was not substantive, and the communication falls within Government Code
section 11430.10(b).
2. Judgment shall be entered in favor of respondent and against petitioner.
3. Respondent shall recover the costs that would have been paid by respondent, but for
Government Code section 6103.5, in the amount of $335.00, which shall be paid by petitioner to
the California Department of Justice for remittance to the proper officer(s) of the City and
County of San Francisco within forty-five days as required by Government Code section 6103.5.
\ ets BE
Dated: BE 2G 2008 _ Libs Lplitelvigge
©Patrick J. honey
Judge of {Me Superior Court
1
Judgment and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate Case No. 07-507652
EE EEE 5110 5S TOS SA
Document Filed Date
February 26, 2008
Case Filing Date
September 12, 2007
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
TEAC San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-26-2008 12:35 pm Case Number: CPF-07-507652 Filing Date: Feb-26-2008 12:33 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02036686 JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT DE ANTHONY ROBERTSON VS. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AN AGENCY OF 001002036686 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O, Box 70550 * OAKLAND, CA 94612-0550 wo on Aw bY N Now Pnre = = es Se eos srs EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attomey General of the State of California J MIGUEL A. NERI & D FIEL D. TIGNO Francisco County SuperiothGer, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General nt DAVID A. CARRILLO, State Bar No. 177856 FEB 2 6 2008 Deputy Attomey General GORDO 1515 Clay Street, 20" Floor IN PARK-LI P.O. Box 70550 Bye ; Clerk Oakland, CA 94612-0550 uty Clark Telephone: (510) 622-2215 Fax: (510) 622-2121 Attorneys for Respondent California Department of Motor Vehicles IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO = Case No. 07-507652 WADE ANTHONY ROBERTSON, t Petitioner, JUDGMENT AND-ORDERDENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, an agency of the State of California, and T. NIKZI, Driver Safety Officer of the Department ofMotor | Date: 26 Feb 2008 Vehicles, Time: 0930 Dept: 302 Respondents. Judge: Honorable Patrick J. Mahoney \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ee EE EET 8 TE TSCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2 & a g g S 3 < Oo 4 ° ° a Ss & s a 9 a ~ wan aA uw & YN This traditional mandate proceeding came on regularly for hearing on February 26, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 302 of the above-referenced court. Deputy Attorney General David A. Carrillo appeared for respondent. Ronald A. Jackson, Esq. appeared for petitioner. After considering the evidence and argument submitted by counsel, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows. 1. The petition for writ of mandate is denied. The undisputed evidence is that the communication was not substantive, and the communication falls within Government Code section 11430.10(b). 2. Judgment shall be entered in favor of respondent and against petitioner. 3. Respondent shall recover the costs that would have been paid by respondent, but for Government Code section 6103.5, in the amount of $335.00, which shall be paid by petitioner to the California Department of Justice for remittance to the proper officer(s) of the City and County of San Francisco within forty-five days as required by Government Code section 6103.5. \ ets BE Dated: BE 2G 2008 _ Libs Lplitelvigge ©Patrick J. honey Judge of {Me Superior Court 1 Judgment and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate Case No. 07-507652 EE EEE 5110 5S TOS SA