Since none of defendant Welch-Brown's contentions implicate the underlying facts, we will not summarize them separately.
ENSHER ALEXANDER AND BARSOOM SARCAMENTO CA TRIAL
She contends that she did not receive adequate notice of the setting of trial on the complaint plaintiff Foster should not have been allowed to appear both in propria persona and through counsel the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion to reopen to allow her to correct evidentiary gaps in her case and the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial. Defendant Welch-Brown moved for a new trial the court, after initially setting the matter for oral argument, vacated the hearing and filed an order denying the motion.ĭefendant Welch-Brown appeals in propria persona. It filed a statement of decision and later entered judgment in plaintiff Foster's behalf. Proc., § 631.8) 3 the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff Foster. 01AS05262) under the latter case number.Īt the close of defendant Welch-Brown's case after three days of testimony, the parties each moved for judgment (Code Civ. 02AS00549) with Welch-Brown's cross-complaint in the original action (Super. The trial court issued an order consolidating Foster's new action (Super. 2 He filed a new action solely against defendant Welch-Brown and later dismissed his earlier complaint without prejudice. She filed a cross-complaint against him for malpractice and other causes of action.
Plaintiff Douglas Foster filed an action for unpaid legal fees and costs against defendant Gaye Welch-Brown and others, obtaining a default judgment against her that she later set aside successfully. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).
0 kommentar(er)
