REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS
|
|
- Nancy Horton
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ.
2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS COSTS OF PROOF SANCTIONS AND NEED FOR EXPERTS Several people have recently pointed out to me that plaintiff s attorney s appear to be using requests for admissions more often and filing post-trial motions for costs and attorneys fees upon conclusion of trial. In fact, recently we have seen Courts grant such post-trial motions, granting plaintiffs and their attorneys awards that in some cases have exceeded the amount the jury awarded the plaintiff for damages! Current budgetary conditions have left the courts with the impetus for creative challenges to reduce case loads and encourage the settlement of cases. Imposition of such costs and fees is clearly one way to get the message out loud and clear the purpose of using requests for admissions is to eliminate matters to be tried, and the failure to comply with reasonable requests may prove to be costly. This is a matter that requires careful consideration and attention and requires that sometimes even in soft tissue and chiropractic treatment cases that we may need to employ an expert to provide support for our denial of the requests for admissions. 1 For example, these requests for admission include such requests as: ADMIT that Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the accident, or ADMIT that the injuries Plaintiff complains of were caused by the subject accident, or ADMIT that the medical bills plaintiff has provided to the defense are reasonable ; or, ADMIT that the medical bills disclosed to the defense in discovery were necessary due to the accident which is the subject of this lawsuit ; or, ADMIT that plaintiff s treating doctors support plaintiff s claim that his/her injuries were caused solely by the subject accident ; or, ADMIT Plaintiff sustained injuries because the stairs were dangerous. After receiving such requests for admissions, defense responds with a Deny. 1 Argument of an attorney whether it be statements made at a hearing or statements contained in points and authorities is not proof legal or evidentiary. City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 25, 31. Merely arguing to the jury that the medical treatment or expenses was not reasonable or necessary is not evidence and a smart plaintiff attorney will or should file a motion in limine to preclude such argument if the defense does not provide testimony of a qualified medical expert to dispute the necessity and reasonableness of medical bills, treatment or extent of injuries. See Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618 costs properly recoverable where defendant did not produce expert at trial to testify. Merely relying on expert s opinions in denial of request for admissions is not sufficient.
3 Plaintiff goes to trial, receives a favorable verdict and then seeks to recover Requests for Admissions costs. Plaintiff argues to the Court that the defendant denied the request for admission as to medical bills and yet defendant never even retained an expert to testify. In other words, defendant offered no evidence to support the denial of the request for admission. Therefore the denial was in bad faith, unsupported by the evidence and costs should be imposed. The Court will more than likely grant this motion. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS IS TO SET AT REST TRIABLE ISSUES SO THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO BE TRIED THEY ARE AIMED AT EXPEDITING TRIAL. THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO AWARD COSTS AND FEES AGAINST A PARTY FOR UNWARRANTED DENIALS OF SUCH REQUESTS. 1. Statutory Authority: Any party may obtain discovery by a written request that the other party admit the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admissions may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., ) Code of Civil Procedure section , subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, If a party fails to admit the... truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the... truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees. The trial court must make the order unless, among other things, [t]he party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail on the matter. (Code Civ. Proc., , subd. (b)(3).) 2. Purpose of Requests for Admissions: The primary purpose of requests for admissions is to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial. ( Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 509 [cost-of-proof sanctions are designed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a party in proving the truth of a requested admission where the admission sought was of substantial importance [citations] such that trial would have been expedited or shortened if the request had been admitted ].) 3. Requests For Admissions Do Not Seek To Uncover Information: Requests for admissions differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof. ( Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860, 864.) Their purpose is to expedite trial. ( Id. at p. 865.)
4 4. Duty To Make Reasonable Investigation: A party responding to requests for admissions has a duty to make a reasonable investigation to ascertain the facts even though the party has no personal knowledge of the matter when the party has available sources of information as to the matters involved in such requests for admissions. ( Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 510; accord, Rosales v. Thermex-Thermatron, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 187, 198.) 5. Whether To Award Such Costs And How Much Is The Court s Discretion: Whether a party is entitled to costs of proof under section , and, if so, the amount to be awarded, is within the trial court's discretion. ( Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 508; accord, Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 637, fn. 10; Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860, 864.) The trial court's ruling will be disturbed on appeal only in a clear case of abuse resulting in a miscarriage of justice... ( Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331, quoting Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566; see also Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp., supra, at p. 637, fn. 10.) The determination of whether there were no good reasons for the denial, whether the requested admission was of substantial importance, and the amount of expenses to be awarded, if any, or all within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Brooks, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 508.) 6. Only Costs Incurred To Prove Denial Under section , a party that denies a request for admission may be ordered to pay the costs and fees incurred by the requesting party in proving that matter. ( Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1276.) The statute authorizes only those expenses incurred in making that proof, i.e., proving the matters denied by the opposing party. Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, [accounting required setting forth the hourly fees and time spent to prove the matters denied conclusionary statements insufficient]). Unlike other discovery sanctions, an award of expenses pursuant to section [ ] is not a penalty. Instead, it is designed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a party in proving the truth of a requested admission... such that trial would have been expedited or shortened if the request had been admitted. ( Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co., supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 509 [discussing predecessor provision]; accord, Stull v. Sparrow, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 865.) Expenses are recoverable only where the party requesting the admission proves... the truth of that matter, not where that party merely prepares to do so. [Wagy v. Brown (1994) 24 CA4th 1, 6].
5 7. No Costs Where Matter Admitted Prior To Trial: Sanctions for cost-of-proof cannot be awarded when the parties have stipulated prior to commencement of trial as to facts previously denied [or where defendant concedes the issue]. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860, No Costs If Denial Based on Reasonably Entertained Belief The responding party must show that at the time of denial, it held a reasonably entertained (i.e., based on admissible evidence) good faith belief that it would prevail on the issue at trial. [See Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 CA4th 1242, 1276]. 9. May Be Awarded To Defendant After Successful Summary Judgment: Such cost of denial fees are not limited to matters that go to trial. They may also be awarded upon the successful grant of a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment also promotes the efficient use of the courts, by ascertaining the presence or absence of triable issues of fact. (See Kurokawa v. Blum (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 976, 988, 245 Cal.Rptr. 463 [The aim of summary judgment is to discover whether the parties possess evidence requiring the weighing procedures of a trial.].) A party that has successfully moved for summary judgment should not be penalized for avoiding trial by a denial of costs of proof. We conclude that sanctions under section 2033, subdivision (o) are available following summary judgment. Barnett v. Penske Truck Leasing (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 494, Factors To Be Considered: In determining whether a party reasonably denied the truth of a requested admission, there are a variety of factors which a court should consider. ( Brooks, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 509.) These include whether a responding party later learned facts that would have called for an admission and advised the requesting party that the denial was in error or should be modified, and whether at the time the denial was made the party making the denial held a reasonably entertained good faith belief that the party would prevail on the issue at trial. ( Id. at pp ) [I]t is [not] enough for the party making the denial to hotly contest the issue. [Instead], there must be some reasonable basis for contesting the issue in question before sanctions can be avoided. ( Id. p. 511.) C.C.P provides that: (a) If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees. (b) The court shall make this order unless it finds any of the following: (1) An objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under Section (2) The admission sought was of no substantial importance.
6 (3) The party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail in the matter. (4) There was other good reason for the failure to admit. 11. Was the Matter of Substantial Importance : The second exception to the mandatory award of sanctions is whether the admission sought was of no substantial importance. [C.C.P (b)(2).] A request for admission is found to be of substantial importance when the matter requested for admission is central to disposition of the case. [ Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 509]. 12. One Need Not Be Prevailing Party To Be Entitled To RFA Costs: One need not be a prevailing party to be entitled to sanctions under this statute. (Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 275.) Conversely, costs of proof are not recoverable simply because the party promulgating the request prevails at trial. ( Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co., supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 513.) 13. No Costs If Objection To Request Was Sustained Or Response Was Waived: The trial court need not award costs of proof if the responding party's objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived by the propounding party , subd. (b)(1).) Under this provision, to avoid waiving entitlement to costs of proof, the propounding party generally must move to compel a further response after an objection is interposed. ( Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 636.) But no such motion is required when the objection is coupled with an unequivocal denial. ( American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 247, [finding responses constituted unequivocal denials, supporting cost-of-proof sanctions]). 14. May Only Be Awarded Against Client, Not Attorney: The cost-of-proof sanction is awardable against the client, not against the attorney. [Estate of Manuel (2010) 187 CA4th 400, ]. 15. Standard of Review On Appeal: The trial court's ruling on a motion under section is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ( Miller v. American Greetings Corp. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1055, )
7 CONCLUSION: An unwarranted denial of a request for admission may prove to be costly and the failure to present the appropriate experts [doctors, etc.] at time of trial to attempt to support the previous denial of the request for admission may prove to be disastrous if the Plaintiff had propounded requests for admissions prior to the trial. It has proven to be quite costly to date in several in cases where a defendant has denied a request that the plaintiff s medical treatment was reasonable or necessary or the bills were reasonable and necessary and yet the defendant fails to produce a doctor at trial to testify. In one appellate decision the court upheld an award of $250, costs of proof fees! The costs of the plaintiff s experts hourly rate for testifying as well as the hourly rate of the attorney s hours in preparing this portion of the trial may be imposed by the defendant against whom the jury has rendered a verdict.
RESOLUTION DIGEST
RESOLUTION 04-02-04 DIGEST Requests for Admissions: Service of Supplemental Requests Amends Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 to allow parties to propound a supplemental request for admission. RESOLUTIONS
More informationIT IS PROPER TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF THE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND REFERRALS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY AND THEIR EXPERTS:
! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS IT IS PROPER TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF THE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND REFERRALS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY AND THEIR EXPERTS:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/31/12; pub. order 8/20/12 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CLAIRE LOUISE DIEPENBROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant v. KYLE
More information! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS.COM
Filed 5/24/12! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS.COM A C.C.P. SECTION 998 OFFER MUST CONTAIN A STATUTORILY MANDATED ACCEPTANCE PROVISION OR IT IS INVALID CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Bob H. Joyce, (SBN 0) Andrew Sheffield (SBN ) LAW OFFICES OF LEBEAU THELEN, LLP 001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 00 Post Office Box 0 Bakersfield, California - (1) -; Fax (1) - Attorneys for DIAMOND
More information3 of 29 DOCUMENTS. RAYMOND GUZMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. No.
Page 1 3 of 29 DOCUMENTS RAYMOND GUZMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant Civ. No. 30336 Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B156171
Filed 5/16/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B156171 (Los Angeles County
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 11/23/16 Cannon & Nelms v. St. Andrews Development Corp. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 2/3/16 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO WILSON DANTE PERRY, B264027 v. Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D058284
Filed 7/19/11; pub. order 8/11/11 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re the Marriage of DELIA T. and ISAAC P. RAMIREZ DELIA T. RAMIREZ, Respondent,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B143328
Filed 10/21/02 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE TERENCE MIX, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B143328 (Super. Ct.
More informationTO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 11/6/13 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS his opinion has been certified for publication in the Official Reports. It is being sent to assist the Court of Appeal in deciding whether to order
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s), CASE NO.: v. DIVISION:. Defendant(s). / UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CAUSE FOR TRIAL AND
More informationBack to previous page: [LETTERHEAD] [DATE] MEET AND CONFER LETTER
Back to previous page: http://legalrequest.net/2013/05/31/draft-correspondence/ [LETTERHEAD] Sondra A. 123 Street City, CA 12345 [DATE] Re: A. v. G. Case No. 30-2011-0012345 MEET AND CONFER LETTER Dear
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----
Filed 11/5/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ---- MICHAEL YANEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, C070726 (Super. Ct. No. S-CV-0026760)
More informationTHERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]
THERE IS NO TORT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION IN CALIFORNIA [But Other Remedies May Be Available]! JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS ! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL,
More informationFiled 3/20/18 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 3/20/18 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CASENOTE: A party may not raise a triable issue of fact at summary judgment by relying on evidence that will not be admissible at trial. Therefore when a party fails to timely exchange expert designation
More informationLEXSEE 56 CAL. 2D 423, 429
Page 1 LEXSEE 56 CAL. 2D 423, 429 MICHAEL CEMBROOK, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; STERLING DRUG, INC., Real Party in Interest S. F. 20707 Supreme Court
More informationJAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS DEFENDANT S CCP 998 OFFER VALID WHEN IT PROVIDED THAT IF ACCEPTED TO FILE AN OFFER AND NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO TRIAL OR WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE OFFER
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman
C073185 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of Tanya Moman and Calvin Moman TANYA MOMAN, Respondent, v. CALVIN MOMAN, Appellant. Appeal from the Superior
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 1/9/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE DEON RAY MOODY, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B226074
More informationDEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright (c) 2010 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.
Page 1 1 of 25 DOCUMENTS DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright (c) 2010 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. *** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH
More informationHooser v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341 (Cal.App.
Hooser v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 341 (Cal.App. 11/13/2000) [1] California Court of Appeals [2] No. D035392 [3]
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 12/4/15 Certified for Publication 12/22/15 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR KARLA DANETTE MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. No. B264143
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A140059
Filed 10/28/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE KERI EVILSIZOR, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH SWEENEY, Defendant and Respondent;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE B193327
Filed 10/17/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE UNZIPPED APPAREL, LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B193327 (Los Angeles
More informationJAMS - The Resolution Experts
JAMS - The Resolution Experts Using Special Masters And Referees Effectively Benefits of Using A Special Master or Referee Expertise Continuity and Consistency Expediency Cost effectiveness 2 Overview
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/25/14; pub. order 7/22/14 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WILLIAM JEFFERSON & CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento)
Filed 7/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) In re C.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE,
More informationCASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT WHEN PLAINTIFF CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO SLIP AND FALL DUE TO UNKNOWN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR. DEFENDANT
More informationCASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: DIV 71 UNIFORM ORDER REGARDING SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL, PRE-TRIAL
More informationCASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS MSJ IS UPHELD IN CLAIM FOR PREMISES LIABILITY WHERE PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW THAT TRUSTEE OF PROPERTY WAS AT FAULT ACCORDING TO THE PROBATE CODE. LIABILITY
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0412, Louis F. Clarizio v. R. David DePuy, Esq. & a., the court on October 12, 2018, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and
More informationATTORNEY-CLIENT MAY 25, 2011 JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ.
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MAY 25, 2011 MCLE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE PURPOSE FOR THE PRIVILEGE 3 II. WHAT IS PROTECTED 3 III. WAIVER OF THE PRIVILEGE 3 IV. WHEN A CORPORATION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 9/25/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX LUIS CANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Civil No. B187267 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationTITLE 2 PROCEDURAL RULE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS SERIES 2 DISCIPLINARY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES FOR ARCHITECTS
TITLE 2 PROCEDURAL RULE BOARD OF ARCHITECTS SERIES 2 DISCIPLINARY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES FOR ARCHITECTS 2-2-1. General. 3.5. Investigator means a member or staff member of the board, or a licensed architect,
More informationThe Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series
The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The American civil judicial system is slow, and imperfect, but many times a victim s only recourse in attempting to me made whole after suffering an injury. This
More informationbeing preempted by the court's criminal calendar.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF «County» «PlaintiffName», vs. «DefendantName», Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. «CaseNumber» SCHEDULING
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 12/30/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE KIMBLY ARNOLD, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/29/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE PATRICIA ANN ROBERTS, an Incompetent Person, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant,
More informationBLAKE ROBERTSON NO CA-0975 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
BLAKE ROBERTSON VERSUS LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-CA-0975 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2008-176,
More informationFundamentals of Civil Litigation in Federal Court
1 Fundamentals of Civil Litigation in Federal Court Faculty: Thomas Schuck, Esq. Commencing an Action - Know the facts the Law, interview the client - no matter whether plaintiff or defendant - Interview
More information1. CIVIL RULES GENERAL PROVISIONS ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL LITIGATION MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - UNIFORM LOCAL RULES
1. CIVIL RULES GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 CITATION These civil rules should be cited as "Marin County Rule, Civil" or "MCR Civ" followed by the rule number (e.g., Marin County Rule, Civil 1.1 or MCR Civ 1.1).
More informationAdministrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents
Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, 2003 Table of Contents PART I Administrative Rules for Procedures for Preliminary Sunrise Review Assessments Part
More informationChapter 5 DISCOVERY. 5.1 Vocabulary Introduction and Discovery Deadlines Chart The Deposition 6
Chapter 5 DISCOVERY 5.1 Vocabulary 4 5.2 Introduction and Discovery Deadlines Chart 5.1 5.3 The Deposition 6 5.3.1 Deposition of a Party - Appearance Only 7 Set a Date, Time and Place for the Deposition
More informationELEMENTS OF A HABEAS PETITION
By Jonathan Grossman ELEMENTS OF A HABEAS PETITION Our state Constitution guarantees that a person improperly deprived of his or her liberty has the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Cal.
More informationJAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS BURDEN ON DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE REQUIRES THAT DEFENDANT ESTABLISH THAT IT DID NOT HAVE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) SHAWN RAMON ROGERS, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. )
More informationLEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE, INC.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT SERVICE, INC. 712 Main Street, Suite 200, Woodland, CA 95695 (800) 666-1917 Fax (530) 668-5866 www.legintent.com Legislative Intent Service, Inc. MCLE Self-Study Exam Ethics and Evidence
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 8/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR TOUCHSTONE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, Petitioner, B241137 (Los Angeles County
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B262029
Filed 9/16/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN SERGIO PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. B262029 (Los Angeles
More informationCASENOTE. Filed 7/23/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
CASENOTE LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS A PLAINTIFF S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONSTITUTES A FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MORE FAVORABLE JUDGMENT OR AWARD, THUS TRIGGERING A DEFENDANT S RIGHT TO EXPERT WITNESS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A106894
Filed 1/9/06 P. v. Carmichael CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT: 09 HEARING DATE: 04/26/17
1. TIME: 9:00 CASE#: MSC12-00247 CASE NAME: HARRY BARRETT VS. CASTLE PRINCIPLES HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED BY CASTLE PRINCIPLES LLC Unopposed granted. 2. TIME: 9:00 CASE#:
More informationPRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES & PROTOCOL FOR JURY TRIALS & REFERRAL TO MEDIATION Revised March 2, 2018 (to correct web link only)
CIRCUIT CIVIL SARASOTA COUNTY PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES & PROTOCOL FOR JURY TRIALS & REFERRAL TO MEDIATION Revised March 2, 2018 (to correct web link only) I LOCAL RULES, STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONALISM & GOOD
More information14 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION GENERAL CIVIL RULES
14 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT DIVISION GENERAL CIVIL RULES TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE 1: GENERAL RULES...3 RULE 2: CASE MANAGEMENT...6 RULE 3: CALENDARS...7 RULE 4: COURT-ORDERED ARBITRATION...9 RULE
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 4/13/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MICHAEL J. SUMRALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MODERN ALLOYS,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 3/26/19 Colborn v. Chevron U.S.A. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 7/5/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX COUNTY OF KERN, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B227276 (Super.
More informationMAGISTRATE COURT PRACTICE. By Dan Fowler RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTRATE COURTS
MAGISTRATE COURT PRACTICE By Dan Fowler RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTRATE COURTS Pursuant to the authority granted it by WV Code 50-1-16, the Supreme Court of Appeals has adopted Rules of Civil Procedure
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE: JUDGE: January 6, 2017 10:00 a.m. HON. SHELLEYANNE W. L. CHANG DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 24 E. HIGGINBOTHAM CALIFORNIA DISABILITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, a
More informationAMBER RETZLOFF et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MOULTON PARKWAY RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, NO. ONE, Defendant and Respondent.
AMBER RETZLOFF et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MOULTON PARKWAY RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, NO. ONE, Defendant and Respondent. G053164 COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-2231 MEMORANDUM RULING
Lopez v. Esparza et al Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION JORDAN LOPEZ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-2231 VERSUS JUDGE MINALDI RAFAEL ESPARAZA, ET AL MAGISTRATE
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER March 29, 2012 This Standing Order supercedes all prior Standing Orders regarding pending
More informationSUMMARY JUDGMENT Calhoun/Cleburne County Bar Association By Shaun L. Quinlan, Esq.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT Calhoun/Cleburne County Bar Association By Shaun L. Quinlan, Esq. 1. Overview A. Applicable Rule B. Legal Standard For Granting/Denying A MFSJ C. Supporting Legal Authority and Evidence
More informationTHE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION IN DEFAMATION CLAIMS: WHEN IS SUCH AN ACTION AGAINST A UNION STRATEGIC LITIGATION AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION?
American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law 2005 Annual Meeting THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION IN DEFAMATION CLAIMS: WHEN IS SUCH AN ACTION AGAINST A UNION STRATEGIC LITIGATION AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION?
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 3/26/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re the Marriage of SANDRA and LEON E. SWAIN. SANDRA SWAIN, B284468 (Los
More informationAn Overview of Civil Litigation in the U.S. presented by Martijn Steger May 24, 2014
presented by Martijn Steger May 24, 2014 General Explanation of Civil Litigation in the U.S. U.S. litigation is governed by + + Rules of Civil Procedure; and + + Rules of Evidence. Rules of Civil Procedure:
More informationCOPY. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
Filed 5/20/14 Certified for publication 6/16/14 (order attached) COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- GEORGE STAUB et al., C071500 v. Plaintiffs
More information6 of 11 DOCUMENTS. Guardado v. Superior Court B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT
Page 1 6 of 11 DOCUMENTS Guardado v. Superior Court B201147 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT 163 Cal. App. 4th 91; 77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 149; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 765
More informationCASE NO: FORECLOSURE SCHEDULING ORDER. 1. Any prior order referring this case to Senior Judge Sandra Taylor is hereby VACATED.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 16 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY CASE NO: Vs. Plaintiff Defendants / FORECLOSURE SCHEDULING ORDER THIS CASE having been reviewed by the
More informationCalifornia Enacts Deposition Time Limit
Contact: Robert Hernandez Attorney at Law 213.417.5172 rhernandez@mpplaw.com California Enacts Deposition Time Limit I. Introduction Beginning January 1, 2013, depositions in California state cases will
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A113296
Filed 4/25/08 P. v. Canada CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Case No.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,, et al. Plaintiff Defendants Case No. NOTICE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER 1 The Pretrial Conference in the above captioned matter
More informationRULES GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
RULES GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 1. Definitions. As used in these rules: (A) Arbitration means a process whereby a neutral third person, called an arbitrator, considers
More informationLAWATYOURFINGERTIPS BY JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. Filed 7/14/17 Safyari v. Fujitec America CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CASENOTE: COURT AFFIRMS MSJ FOR DEFENDANTS IN MATTER WHERE PLAINTIFF CLAIMED INJURIES DUE TO SUDDEN DROP OF ELEVATOR. WHILE THIS CASE IS UNPUB- LISHED IT CONTAINS AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION IN: (1) BURDEN
More informationPEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure
PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. tms@manningllp.com MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP Five Questions Five
More informationStanding Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals
Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart
More informationNASD OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS. v. Hearing Officer Andrew H. Perkins. Respondent. INTERIM SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NASD OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT, Disciplinary Proceeding No. Complainant, 2005001449202 v. Hearing Officer Andrew H. Perkins Respondent. INTERIM SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT
More informationAttorneys for Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Colin C. West (Bar No. ) Thomas S. Hixson (Bar No. 10) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 1-0 Telephone: (1) -000 Facsimile: (1) - QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado)
Filed 5/28/13: pub. order 6/21/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ROSINA JEANNE DRAKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, C068747 (Super.
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER 1220-01-02 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1220-01-02-.01 Definitions 1220-01-02-.12 Pre-Hearing Conferences 1220-01-02-.02
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----
Filed 5/25/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, v. Plaintiff and
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. Case No. 51-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION Case No. 51-, vs. Plaintiff, Defendants. ORDER SETTING JURY TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
More informationThe court annexed arbitration program.
NEVADA ARBITRATION RULES (Rules Governing Alternative Dispute Resolution, Part B) (effective July 1, 1992; as amended effective January 1, 2008) Rule 1. The court annexed arbitration program. The Court
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B204853
Filed 1/23/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE PRO VALUE PROPERTIES, INC., Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. B204853
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 2/24/17 Suriya Systems v. Quadrant 4 System CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationCLERK RULE 1 EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2014 RULE 1. INITIATING MEDIATION IN MATTERS BEFORE THE CLERK
CLERK RULE 1 EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2014 RULE 1. INITIATING MEDIATION IN MATTERS BEFORE THE CLERK A. PURPOSE OF MANDATORY MEDIATION. These Rules are promulgated pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-38.3B to implement mediation
More informationOREGON. having a treating physician prepare a written report regarding plaintiff s injuries for an attorney or
OREGON Michael B. Hallinan LAW OFFICE OF BARRY GOEHLER 1001 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1530 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 820-2521 Facsimile: (503) 820-2513 hallinm@nationwide.com I. MEDICAL EXPENSES A.
More informationMELISSA PRINCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUTTER HEALTH CENTRAL et al., Defendants and Respondents. C052530
Page 1 MELISSA PRINCE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUTTER HEALTH CENTRAL et al., Defendants and Respondents. C052530 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT PONTE, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 24, 2012 v Nos. 298193; 298194 Washtenaw Circuit Court SANDRA HAZLETT, d/b/a HAZLETT & LC No.
More informationCALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT Title 3. Civil Rules Division 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution Chapter 1. General Provisions
Page 1 Chapter 1. General Provisions Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.800 (2009) Rule 3.800. Definitions As used in this division: (1) "Alternative dispute resolution process" or "ADR process" means a process,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. B239849 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 194
STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In Re: Norman R. Blais, Esq. PRB File No. 2015-084 Decision No. 194 Norman R. Blais, Esq., Respondent, is publicly Reprimanded and placed on probation
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 6/30/16 Friend v. Kang CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/3/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT STARA ORIEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B277323 (Los Angeles County
More informationCOURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
Innocence Legal Team 1600 S. Main St., Suite 195 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: 925 948-9000 Attorney for Defendant COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE Case No. OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B208404
Filed 9/8/09 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN JOSEPH LI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B208404 (Los Angeles County
More information