arrow left
arrow right
  •  Hemmer VS Suburban Auto Brokers,Inc. Unlimited Civil document preview
  •  Hemmer VS Suburban Auto Brokers,Inc. Unlimited Civil document preview
  •  Hemmer VS Suburban Auto Brokers,Inc. Unlimited Civil document preview
  •  Hemmer VS Suburban Auto Brokers,Inc. Unlimited Civil document preview
						
                                

Preview

ee A*5584970" OR FILED. ALAMEDA COUNTY EDWARD P. MATHEWSON (SBN: 60298) 152 North Third Street, Suite 800 JUN 25 2007 San Jose, CA 95112 Telephone: (408) 286-4888 CLERK OR THE SUPE RIOR COURT B y CO) Nea note Ot heChabot eg Attorney for Suburban Auto Brokers, Inc., Peputy Afzal Akbar, Keith Akbar and Platte River Insurance Company SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA THOMAS HEMMER, an individual, ) Case No. HG05214517 ) Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGMENT ) ) SUBURBAN AUTO BROKERS, INC., a ) corporation, AFZAL AKBAR, an individual, ) KEITH AKBAR, and individual, PLATTE ) RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, and Does ) One through Ten, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-COMPLAINTS This cause came on regularly for trial on March 12, 2007, in Department 512 of 19 the above-entitled court, the Honorable Barbara J.Miller, Judge, presiding, sitting without ajury, 20 h jury having been duly waived. Plaintiff appeared by his attorneys, Robert Padrick, Scott 21 Kaufman, and Kevin Faulk. All Defendants appeared by their attorney, Edward P. Mathewson. 22 Evidence, both oral and documentary, having been presented by both parties, the cause having 23 been argued and submitted for decision, and the court having caused to be made and filed herein 24 itswritten Order re: Decision of Court, 25 -1- JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 1. Plaintiff, Thomas Hemmer, shall take nothing from Defendants by way of his complaint; and 2. Defendant Suburban Auto Brokers, Inc. shall recover from Plaintiff the sum of $1,023.30 on itsCross-Complainant plus interest at the legal rate from December 24, 2004; and 3. Defendants shall recover their costs of suit from Plaintiff. Dated: CL oO yor 10 UDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 11 12 13 APPROVED AS TO PORM: 6 14 15 16 Robert Patitick, attorney for Plaintiff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -2- JUDGMENT