Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/27/2018 at 21:24:49 (UTC).

LUIS CALDERON VS MICHAEL KOUTSOUKOS ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/10/2017 LUIS CALDERON filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against MICHAEL KOUTSOUKOS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL P. LINFIELD. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1615

  • Filing Date:

    08/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CALDERON LUIS

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

KOUTSOUKOS ELENI J

KOUTSOUKOS MICHAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

CALHOUN & ASSOCIATES

 

Court Documents

JUDGMENT/COURT AFT DEFAULT

1/23/2018: JUDGMENT/COURT AFT DEFAULT

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

6/4/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

DECLARATION OF MARTY J. NICHOLSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR

8/23/2018: DECLARATION OF MARTY J. NICHOLSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 473(D); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

8/23/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ? 473(D); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Minute Order

1/17/2018: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10/27/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10/27/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Unknown

11/17/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

12/8/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/24/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/29/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/29/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH ACT (CAL WORNLA CIVIL CODE 51, ET SEQ.); ETC

8/10/2017: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH ACT (CAL WORNLA CIVIL CODE 51, ET SEQ.); ETC

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/24/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 34, Michael P. Linfield, Presiding; (Motion Hearing; Court makes order) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2018
  • DECLARATION OF MARTY J. NICHOLSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2018
  • Notice of Motion; Filed by LUIS CALDERON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by LUIS CALDERON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2018
  • NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 473(D); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • Writ-Other Issued; Filed by Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by LUIS CALDERON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 10/27/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH ACT (CAL WORNLA CIVIL CODE 51, ET SEQ.); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by LUIS CALDERON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC671615    Hearing Date: August 10, 2020    Dept: 34

Court Order on Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement

The Court issued a final decision on August 13, 2019 that Appellant attached to his Proposed Settlement Statement. The Court also denied Appellant’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on October 1, 2019. The August 13, 2019 decision is the full and final decision of this Court. The Court based its ruling entirely on the arguments raised in the pleadings and adopted its previously-posted tentative decision at the conclusion of the hearing.

Under CRC Rule 8.137,

An appellant may elect in his or her notice designating the record on appeal under rule 8.121 to use a settled statement as the record of the oral proceedings in the superior court without filing a motion under (2) if:

(A) The designated oral proceedings in the superior court were not reported by a court reporter;”

As appellant has indicated, there was no court reporter present at the August 13, 2019 hearing. No evidence was taken at the hearing, and no objections were made at the hearing. The Court based its ruling on the pleadings, and the basis for the ruling is contained in the Court’s decision of that day.

As our courts have explained, the purpose of a settled statement is to provide an adequate record for an appellate court to investigate whether reversible error occurred. (People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 66.)

Appellant did not make any arguments at the hearing that were not contained in their moving papers.

Further the Court has no recollection nor notes indicating, as alleged in Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, that the Court “succinctly stated that even though [the Court] might be inclined to set aside the judgment, [the Court] would not be able to do so . . . .” (See Appellant’s Proposed Settled Statement, Attachment 6.)

Therefore, the Court will delete Attachment 6 as proposed by Appellant in its Proposed Settled Statement – the majority of which is simply argument by Appellant, and part of which indicates statements that the Court does not believe it made – and allow the pleadings filed by the parties and Minute Orders issued by the Court to comprise the Record on Appeal.