Reuter v. Oakwood Construction and Restoration Service Inc.

HearingDescription: Remittitur issued.

DispositionDescription: Affirmed in full; Disposition Type: Final Order affirmed. Bedsworth/Aronson/Dunning; Publication Status: Signed Unpublished; Author: Bedsworth, William W.; Participants: Aronson, Richard M. (Concur) Dunning, Kim Garlin (Concur)

DocketDescription: Opinion filed.; Notes: (Signed Unpublished) Order affirmed. Bedsworth/Aronson/Dunning

DocketDescription: Cause argued and submitted.; Notes: Merits. Cause called. Evan A. Blair argued for appellant/x-respondent. Kathleen Carter argued for respondent/X-appellant. Cause submitted.

DocketDescription: Calendar notice sent electronically. Calendar date:

DocketDescription: Case briefed and on assignment panel.

DocketDescription: Filed change of firm name.; Notes: Andrew Hollins old firm: Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC new firm: Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley old address 1: 695 Tower Center Dr., 16th floor new address 1: 600 Anton Blvd., 11th Fl. old phone: 714-361-9550 new phone: (949) 507-6711 old email: andy.hollins@piblaw.com new email: andy.hollins@ropers.com

DocketDescription: Request for oral argument filed by:; Notes: Kathleen Carter will argue for respondent/X-appellant - 15 minutes.

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Oakwood Construction and Restoration Service Inc. association of attorney was rejected. Attorney changed Law Firms, he needs to file a notice for change of law firm.

DocketDescription: Request for oral argument filed by:; Notes: Dane Cummaro will argue for appellant/x-respondent - 15 minutes.

DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: The parties have not filed a proposed briefing schedule as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.216(a)(1). IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule within 10 days from the date of this order, including both the briefing sequence and the briefing period, using the times as specified in Rule 8.212(a). The proposed joint briefing schedule shall identify by name, rather than status, the party or parties who will file each individual or combined brief, as well as the trigger point from which the period to file the brief shall commence to run. If the parties are unable to agree upon a joint proposed briefing schedule, the parties may file separate proposed briefing schedules. If the parties do not file joint or separate proposed briefing schedules within the 10-day period, the court will issue its own briefing schedule. A party shall promptly notify the court if the party does not intend to file a brief.

DocketDescription: Note:

DocketDescription: Civil case information statement filed.; Notes: by cross-appellant Oakwood Construction and Restoration Services Inc.

DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: Civil Case Information Statement is rejected because they did not attached a minute order or final judgment.

DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: Paid by appellant - Jeffrey Reuter

DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Cross-appeal. Judgment date 8-30-17. cross-appellant - Oakwood Construction and Restoration Services Inc.

DocketDescription: Certification of Interested Entities or Persons filed.; Notes: by appellant

DocketDescription: Civil case information statement filed.

DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Appellant - Jeffrey Reuter

DocketTrial Court Name: Orange County Superior Court - Main; County: Orange; Trial Court Case Number: 30-2014-00754557; Trial Court Judge: Howard, Theodore