Plaintiff and Respondent Kamyar Shayan filed an
interpleader action to resolve claims about a disputed $19,365
sum. Two claimants and defendants had notice of the trial date
but failed to appear. The court conducted the trial, adjudicated
the case on the merits, and entered judgment. Later these
claimants filed a motion for relief under the mandatory provision
of subdivisio

Defendant and appellant John-David Gonzales (Gonzales) appeals the orders of
the trial court that led to the disbursement of settlement funds to respondents Michael
Silvers, a law corporation (Silvers), Panish, Shea & Boyle (PSB), Michael W. Jacobs
(Jacobs), Case Advance (CA),1 Nexus Physical Therapy (Nexus), and Everence
Association, Inc. (Everence) (Silvers, PSB, Jacobs, CA, Nexu

Petitioner Meadowbrook Insurance Company (Meadowbrook), administrator for
Star Insurance Company, petitioned for writ of review of the Workers’ Compensation
Appeal Board’s (WCAB) decision on reconsideration that liens held by DFS Interpreting
(DFS) against Meadowbrook regarding unpaid invoices for interpreter services DFS
provided to Meadowbrook’s insureds were not foreclosed

A general contractor named Regency Midland
Construction, Inc. hired subcontractor Legendary Structures, Inc.
to do the concrete work for a new apartment building. Legendary
quit halfway through. Regency and Legendary sued each other.
Their dispute turns on the “retention” clause in the contract. The
trial court properly granted summary judgment for Regency and
dismissed

Defendant and Appellant Rugger Investment Group LLC (Rugger) entered
into a contract to sell an airplane to Plaintiffs and Respondents Magic Carpet Ride, LLC
(MCR) and Kevin T. Jennings. Rugger deposited a lien release into escrow eight days
after the expiration of a 90-day period in which it was required to do so. The trial court
found Rugger could not claim substantial performanc

Family law practitioners should read this opinion with the
following in mind: “[F]amily law court is a court of equity . . . .”
(E.g., In re Marriage of Boswell (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1172,
1174.) Appellate attack upon a discretionary trial court ruling is
an “uphill battle.” (Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th
1443, 1448.)
Mark Bittenson (husband) appeals a p

¶0 1. Jury--Right to Jury Trial--Mortgage Foreclosure--Issue as to Amount Due. In an action for the recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by the defendants, and for the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure the payment of said note, where issue is joined as to the indebtedness due, either party is entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of right.
2. Corporations--Subscriptio

¶1 The defendant in error, Merry X. Ball, hereafter referred to as "plaintiff", instituted this action on December 7, 1953, against the plaintiffs in error, hereafter referred to as "defendants" or by name, to recover an undivided 2/9ths interest in the estate of Dewey W. Smith, her deceased father who died intestate in 1942 a resident of Cotton County, Oklahoma, and for an accounting in connecti

Here is what Code of Civil Procedure1 section 583.130 says: “It is the
policy of the state that a plaintiff shall proceed with reasonable diligence in the
prosecution of an action but that all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial
or other disposition.” That is not complicated language. No jury instruction defining any
of its terms would be necessary if we wer

We recount some of the facts from an opinion authored by
Division Five of this District in the second of two related appeals,
which we will call Wertheim III. (Wertheim, LLC v. Currency
Corp. (Aug. 25, 2017, B270926) [nonpub. opn.].)
In 2009, a jury in Department 44 of the superior court
found Currency liable to Wertheim for breach of contract, and
awarded it $38,554.48. Th

Plaintiff Arkady Berger sought to collect an underlying judgment against
defendant Gary Varum and his company, defendant Telesis Engineers, Inc. (jointly the
Varum defendants). Berger alleged the Varum defendants fraudulently transferred assets
to other defendants in an effort to avoid paying the judgment. While Berger’s
enforcement action against the Varum defendants and defenda

Tobias Kahan purchased property in Richmond, California at a foreclosure sale.
Shortly before the sale, the City of Richmond (City) had recorded a “special assessment”
lien against the property for unpaid garbage collection fees, pursuant to a municipal
ordinance. When Kahan later sold the property, he had to pay the delinquent garbage
fees as well as administrative charges and