Quoting from the San Bernardino County Superior Court Access system on the Ristow v Mike A. Ramos civil rights trial:
"FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [on the Motion for Reconsideration]
CLERK: ROBIN RYAN
COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE
-
ATTORNEY JAMES V. REISS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY BRANDON A. TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENTATIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL WHO ARE PERSONALLY PRESENT IN COURTROOM.
ACTION CAME ON FOR MOTION RE: FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION TO FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS HEARD.
CHERYL RISTOW'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY PLAINTIFF IS DENIED.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNTIMELY HAVING BEEN
BROUGHT AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT WHICH DIVESTED THE COURT OF THE ABILITY TO HEAR THE
MOTION.
-
THE COURT REFUSES TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS APPEAL RIGHTS HAVE RUN ON
THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE IS PROPERLY DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL AND IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE
THIS COURT.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE
GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT HER FAILURE TO PRESENT THE NEW FACTS TO THE COURT
OCCURRED DESPITE HER DILIGENCE GIVEN THAT COUNSEL HAD POSSESSION OF THESE FACTS ON MARCH
1, 2011-TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND THE FACTS WERE THOSE THAT WERE PRESUMABLY WITHIN
PLAINTIFFS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THAT DATE.
-
EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN TIMELY, THE COURT WOULD DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT IS BROUGHT BASED ON THE CLAIMED EX PARTE CONTACT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFFS
COUNSEL APPEARED AT THE HEARING AND WAS ABLE TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF HER OPPOSITION AND SO
SUFFERED NO PREJUDICE FROM ANY EARLIER ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE COURT REALIZED THAT SHE HAD
SOUGHT TO HAVE THE HEARING HEARD AT A LATER TIME.
-
COUNSEL STIPULATE TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF MARCH 3, 2011 WAS NOT FILED.
-
ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING OF THE COURT IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE
................................................................................
FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JUDGE [DEMURRER TO ONLY AMENDED COMPLAINT]
CLERK: JESSICA HAZEL
COURT REPORTER KATHY SELLERS KATHY SELLERS
COURT ATTENDANT ROBERT DELGADO
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY CHRISTINE BACHMAN PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY EUGENE RAMIREZ AND BRANDON TAKAHASHI PRESENT FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
ATTORNEY RICHARD MARCA PRESENT FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A RAMOS.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
PREDISPOSITION HEARING HELD
-
MOTION
COPY OF COURTS TENITIVE RULING GIVEN TO COUNSEL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL A. RAMOS'S MOTION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
-
COURT FINDS:
DEMURRER SUSTAINED.
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, GROUNDS OF -.
ATTACHED NOTICE OF COURTS RULING IS ORDERED INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTE ORDER AND REFERENCED
AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN.
ACTION - COMPLETE"
Blogger Bob's comments:
1. In civil rights cases, since when is the question of whether there are enough facts decided in a demurrer? Isn't that something reserved for summary judgment motions after some discovery (e.g. depositions or testimony under oath) is taken? Besides, since when does a civil rights plaintiff only get ONE chance to amend her complaint in this County? Wierd stuff. Preferential treatment for Ramos it seems.
2. What happened to the proposed judgment? Was it signed and filed the date of the demurrer hearing, five days later as the "Access" docket suggests or later??It seems the Court signed a proposed judgment and it got lost in the clerk's office. Who and when the notice of entry of judgment was filed and served is unclear--which typically are necessary events to pin down as those events trigger various statute of limitations and or filing periods;
3. If the demurrer was granted on March 3, 2011, certain State Rules of Court kick in; California Rules of Court 3.1312 requires the proposed judgment be sent by the prevailing party within 5 days of the ruling from the bench (3/3/2011) and THEN under that same rule, the losing party has five days to notify the prevailing party that prepared (and proposed) order is approved or not ...... If there are differences, the court needs to be told what they area and THEN the judge typically signs the judgment and THEN it is served, thereby triggering appeal periods.
4. Under California Rule of Court 3.1312, the steps in No. 3 above are mandatory --the Rule uses the word "must"--so why wasn't Ristow's due process rights protected? More Ramos love?
5. So Reiss does not feel too picked on, I had a similar wierd experience, but I went after that judge's mentor in an election. More Ramos love?
No comments:
Post a Comment