- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR
Wednesday, MAY 25, 2016, 3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 18 – Hon. René Auguste Chouteau
3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa
CourtCall is available for all Law & Motion appearances, EXCEPT parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption which are mandatory appearances. Please contact CourtCall directly at (888) 882-6878.
The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify the Court by telephone at (707) 521-6547, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, MAY 24, 2016. Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.
1. MCV-199408; Household Finance v. Simon
2. MCV-236999; Capital One v. Samii
DROPPED from calendar at the request of counsel for moving party.
3. SCV-255638; Hernandez-Collado v. Amy’s Kitchen
The Proposed Class Action Settlement is preliminarily approved. Attorney fees will be awarded based on a load star calculation that includes a reasonable hourly rate. Plaintiff’s attorneys are to submit for court approval a revised notice to class that includes a summary face sheet that class members with little or no education can understand.
Plaintiff is to submit an order, which the court will sign once it approves the summary face sheet for the notice.
4. SCV-255925; Dressen v. Bruning
Plaintiff’s Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Motion for New Trial are denied. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict finding that Defendant’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injury.
Campbell v. Cal-Guard Services (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 563. Dominguez v. Pantalone (1989) 212 CA3rd 201.
The verdict was not inconsistent, based on substantial evidence the findings can be reconciled. Singh v. Southland Stone (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338, 357.