http://www.fearnotlaw.com/freelance_lawyers/rss.php www.FearNotLaw.com Projects en-us http://www.fearnotlaw.com/freelance_lawyers/rss.php/index.php?a=project&pid=4 Need a set of motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories. Also need the pre-filing meet and confer performed. 2006-04-22 14:47:35 scottlaw http://www.fearnotlaw.com/freelance_lawyers/rss.php/index.php?a=project&pid=5 Need a motion for summary adjudication drafted in a boundary dispute. Have already established boundary, and now need to move for summary adjudication for liability for trespass. Project will include all citations to evidence, separate statements, drafting declarations, requests for judicial notice. 2006-04-22 14:52:26 scottlaw http://www.fearnotlaw.com/freelance_lawyers/rss.php/index.php?a=project&pid=6 ******************** Testing :o RSS Feeds ********************* :) 2006-05-12 05:49:59 scottlaw http://www.fearnotlaw.com/freelance_lawyers/rss.php/index.php?a=project&pid=9 Starting point for judge Soussan Bruguera; Some Reversals of Soussan Bruguera's Unlawful Decisions IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [Excerpts from B196230, emphasis added]. VANESSA E. BELL, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SAMUEL PIERCE et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEALS from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge. Order vacated in part and affirmed in part. "Fair Market Rental Value as Offset for the Bells - Pierce contends that the trial court erred in awarding the Bells "the fair rental value of the Property of $1,500 per month commencing April 1,2005,to date of this Judgment"... in fact, the Bells were in possession of the Property. In Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 CaI.2d 206,the Supreme Court discussed the principles goveming calculation of damages incident to the decree of specific performance. The court noted that the incidental damages awarded should not place a real properly buyer in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Id. at p.22l.) "A court of equity will not permit a party to obtain such an undue advantage." (Ibid.) In general, a buyer in possession is not entitled to recover the fair rental value of the property for the period the buyer has occupied the premises rent free. (Stratton v. Tejani, supra,139 Cal.App.3d at p.212, fn. 6.) Otherwise, the buyer would be put in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 Cal.2d, at p.221.) Accordingly, the award in the judgment of the offset for the fair rental value of the property, $28,500, MUST BE REVERSED." "Sanctions Against Pierce as Offset for the Bells - Pierce claims that the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements in section 128.7, subdivision (c), in violation of his due process rights. "Adequate notice prior to imposition of sanctions is mandated not only by statute, but also by the due process clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions." (O'Brien v. Cseh (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 957,961.) The notice requirement for section 128.7 sanctions includes a "waiting period" of 21 days to provide a safe harbor to allow the allegedly offending party to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged claim. (# 128.7, subd. (c)(1) & (2).) The safe harbor requirement is mandatory for compliance with due process requirements. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214,1220 and fn. 3.) The record shows that Pierce was not provided with the required notice. Due to the mandatory nature of the section 128.7 notice and safe harbor provisions, the sanctions awards totaling $3,500 MUST BE REVERSED. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, supra,73 Cal.App.4th at pp.1220-1221.) It follows, therefore, that the portion of the judgment awarding the offset for the $3,500 sanctions CANNOT STAND." "Rent Paid By the Bells as Offset - Pierce claims the court erred in admitting the checks into evidence over his objection, in that there was no authentication or foundation. He relies on Evidence Code section 1401, subdivision (a), which provides that "[a]uthentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence," and People v. Zoffel (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 2l5, which states at pages 220 through 221 that it is error to admit unauthenticated documents. In the record, we found no foundational evidence that the checks were ever submitted to or cashed by Pierce or his agent. The Bells have not cited any such evidence. Thus, the checks do not constitute substantial evidence of the Bells' payment of rent in the amount of $13,328.91 from February 2005 through January 2006. Accordingly, the judgment MUST BE REVERSED to the extent that it provides for an offset of such rents." 2010-05-08 03:37:01 ethosone http://www.fearnotlaw.com/freelance_lawyers/rss.php/index.php?a=project&pid=10 Starting point for judge Soussan Bruguera; Some Reversals of Soussan Bruguera's Unlawful Decisions IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [Excerpts from B196230, emphasis added]. VANESSA E. BELL, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SAMUEL PIERCE et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEALS from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge. Order vacated in part and affirmed in part. "Fair Market Rental Value as Offset for the Bells - Pierce contends that the trial court erred in awarding the Bells "the fair rental value of the Property of $1,500 per month commencing April 1,2005,to date of this Judgment"... in fact, the Bells were in possession of the Property. In Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 CaI.2d 206,the Supreme Court discussed the principles goveming calculation of damages incident to the decree of specific performance. The court noted that the incidental damages awarded should not place a real properly buyer in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Id. at p.22l.) "A court of equity will not permit a party to obtain such an undue advantage." (Ibid.) In general, a buyer in possession is not entitled to recover the fair rental value of the property for the period the buyer has occupied the premises rent free. (Stratton v. Tejani, supra,139 Cal.App.3d at p.212, fn. 6.) Otherwise, the buyer would be put in a better position than if the contract had been timely performed. (Ellis v. Mihelis, supra,60 Cal.2d, at p.221.) Accordingly, the award in the judgment of the offset for the fair rental value of the property, $28,500, MUST BE REVERSED." "Sanctions Against Pierce as Offset for the Bells - Pierce claims that the trial court failed to comply with the notice requirements in section 128.7, subdivision (c), in violation of his due process rights. "Adequate notice prior to imposition of sanctions is mandated not only by statute, but also by the due process clauses of both the state and federal Constitutions." (O'Brien v. Cseh (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 957,961.) The notice requirement for section 128.7 sanctions includes a "waiting period" of 21 days to provide a safe harbor to allow the allegedly offending party to withdraw or appropriately correct the challenged claim. (# 128.7, subd. (c)(1) & (2).) The safe harbor requirement is mandatory for compliance with due process requirements. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1214,1220 and fn. 3.) The record shows that Pierce was not provided with the required notice. Due to the mandatory nature of the section 128.7 notice and safe harbor provisions, the sanctions awards totaling $3,500 MUST BE REVERSED. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, supra,73 Cal.App.4th at pp.1220-1221.) It follows, therefore, that the portion of the judgment awarding the offset for the $3,500 sanctions CANNOT STAND." "Rent Paid By the Bells as Offset - Pierce claims the court erred in admitting the checks into evidence over his objection, in that there was no authentication or foundation. He relies on Evidence Code section 1401, subdivision (a), which provides that "[a]uthentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence," and People v. Zoffel (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 2l5, which states at pages 220 through 221 that it is error to admit unauthenticated documents. In the record, we found no foundational evidence that the checks were ever submitted to or cashed by Pierce or his agent. The Bells have not cited any such evidence. Thus, the checks do not constitute substantial evidence of the Bells' payment of rent in the amount of $13,328.91 from February 2005 through January 2006. Accordingly, the judgment MUST BE REVERSED to the extent that it provides for an offset of such rents." 2010-05-08 03:37:43 ethosone