This case was last updated from California Courts Of Appeal on 11/30/2021 at 03:51:08 (UTC).

Bulmer v. Carfast San Diego, Inc. et al.

Case Summary

On 07/27/2021 Bulmer filed an Other lawsuit against Carfast San Diego, Inc. This case was filed in California Courts Of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Strauss, Richard. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***9267

  • Filing Date:

    07/27/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Strauss, Richard

 

Party Details

Appellant and Plaintiff

Robert Bulmer

Respondents and Defendants

Carfast San Diego, Inc.

2415 1St Avenue, Mail Station F101

Sacramento, CA 95818

Westlake Services, LLC

Hudson Insurance Company

Not Yet Classified and Respondent

Hudson Insurance Company

Other

The People

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Appellant and Plaintiff Attorneys

Hallen D. Rosner

Attorney at Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP

10085 Carroll Canyon Road Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92131

Michelle Allyse Cook

Attorney at Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP

10085 Carroll Canyon Rd. Ste 100

San Diego, CA 92131-1100

Gregory Thomas Babbitt

Attorney at Rosner, Barry, & Babbitt LLP

10085 Carroll Cyn Rd Ste 100

San Diego, CA 92131

Arlyn L Escalante

Attorney at Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP

10085 Carroll Canyon Rd., Ste 100

San Diego, CA 92131

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

James Steven Sifers

Attorney at Madison Law, APC

17702 Mitchell N

Irvine, CA 92614-6013

Clark Howard Cameron

Attorney at Humphrey Berger & Associates LLP

23901 Calabasas Rd Ste 1069

Calabasas, CA 91302

Respondent and Not Yet Classified Attorney

Clark Howard Cameron

Attorney at Humphrey Berger & Associates LLP

23901 Calabasas Rd Ste 1069

Calabasas, CA 91302

Other Attorneys

Office Of The State Attorney General

110 West A Street, Ste. 1100

San Diego, CA 92101

Office Of The District Attorney

Appellate Division P. O. Box X-1011

San Diego, CA 92112

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/28/2022
  • HearingDescription: APPELLANT'S APPENDIX AND OPENING BRIEF FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2022
  • HearingDescription: Certificate of interested entities and parties filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2022
  • HearingDescription: Certificate of interested entities and parties filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2022
  • HearingDescription: Certificate of interested entities and parties filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2021
  • DocketDescription: Stipulation of extension of time filed:; Notes: APPELLANT'S APPENDIX AND OPENING BRIEF FILED. Due on 01/28/2022 By 60 Day(s)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketDescription: REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT FILED***; Notes: Clerk's rule 8.124 and Reporter'sRT-1/7pgs.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to counsel re:; Notes: On September 23, 2021, the court sent a letter to counsel asking why the appeal filed on July 27, 2021, should not be dismissed as being from a nonappealable, interlocutory order, dated June 25, 2021, denying appellant Robert Bulmer's motion for attorney fees. In that letter, the court noted that its review of the San Diego County Superior Court's register of actions for this case did not show any judgment or dismissal of the action with prejudice had been entered. The letter further stated that in general, where there is no final judgment and an order is not specifically appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a), that order is directly appealable only if it is a collateral order that directs the payment of money or performance of an act. (Koshak v. Malek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1545; In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368; Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119; cf. Dr. V Productions, Inc. v. Rey (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 793, ___ [dismissing appeal from interlocutory order denying motion for attorney fees].) On October 7, 2021, appellant submitted a letter, attaching a copy of a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of his action, which was accepted for filing by the superior court clerk on October 5, 2021. His letter, however, did not address the effect of that voluntary dismissal on the instant appeal of the June 25, 2021 order. The appeal may proceed at this time. The appealability of the order may be addressed by the parties in their respective appellate briefing and may be subject to further consideration by the court during the pendency of the appeal. (See, e.g., Goldbaum v. Regents of the University of California (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 703, 708; Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012; Ashland Chemical Co. v. Provence (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 790, 792-793.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed letter from:; Notes: Superior Ct dissmissal per court's request

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed letter from:; Notes: Appellant re appealability

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2021
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to counsel re:; Notes: The notice of appeal filed by appellant Robert Bulmer on July 27, 2021, indicates that he is appealing from a June 25, 2021 order denying his motion for attorney fees. Our review of the San Diego County Superior Court's register of actions for this case does not show any judgment or dismissal of the action with prejudice has been entered. In general, where there is no final judgment and an order is not specifically appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a), that order is directly appealable only if it is a collateral order that directs the payment of money or performance of an act. (Koshak v. Malek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1545; In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368; Sjoberg v. Hastorf (1948) 33 Cal.2d 116, 119.) Because the instant order denying appellant's motion for attorney fees does not direct the payment of money or performance of an act, it appears that order is a nonappealable, interlocutory order. (Cf. Dr. V Productions, Inc. v. Rey (2021) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, ___ [2021 WL 4129463] [dismissing appeal from interlocutory order denying motion for attorney fees].) Appellant is requested to submit a letter to the court within 10 days of the date of this letter explaining why his appeal of the June 25, 2021 order should not be dismissed as being from a nonappealable, interlocutory order. Respondent may also address the appealability of that order within the same 10-day period.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Civil case information statement filed.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Transcript fees paid.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Notice to reporter to prepare transcript.; Notes: CSR, Kmety: 6/25/21

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: Respondent Carfast San Diego, Inc., being a corporation, may not represent itself and must appear by an attorney. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) Within 30 days of the date of this order, Carfast San Diego, Inc. shall provide this court with the name of its counsel or the efforts made to retain counsel. Failure to obtain counsel may result in forfeiture of Carfast San Diego, Inc.'s rights on appeal. (Thomas G. Gerruzzo, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 501, 504.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketDescription: Default notice sent; no case information statement filed, or statement incomplete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketDescription: Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketDescription: Appellate package sent.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Filed July 27, 2021 by ROBERT BULMER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: San Diego County Superior Court - Main; County: San Diego; Trial Court Case Number: 37-2019-00017979-CU-CO-CTL; Trial Court Judge: Strauss, Richard

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Carfast San Diego, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where People is a litigant

Latest cases where WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where Hudson Insurance Company is a litigant