` `
LAW & MOTION RULINGS AND TENTATIVE RULINGS
DEPT L64 Judge Nancy Pollard
CALENDAR DATE: July 25, 2008
|
# |
Case Name |
Tentative |
Comment |
|
2 |
BACALZO |
MOTION FOR BIFURCATION - DENIED. Premature, |
MP to file PDD; /why requirement to provide health ins for RP not checked. Condition of 2337 |
|
3
|
BAME
|
Motion to Set Aside FOAH - DENIED. Request for Atty Fees DENIED |
|
|
4
|
BERMEO |
Motion to Compel Discovery CONTINUED 10/10/08, Dept. L64; Petitioner to give notice |
|
|
5 |
CHARNAW |
Respondent’s Motion for entry of Judgment nunc pro tunc 12/31/04 is continued for proper POS on Petitioner/Wife. If Service is OK, Court needs supporting docs for entry of Judgment and Grants Motion |
|
|
6 |
DAVILA |
Petitioner’S MOTION FOR BIFURCATION – GRANTED With all applicable FC2337 © conditions |
Court questions joinder of pension plan and POS on plan. Order Joinder before granting motion |
|
7 |
HAGHIGHAT |
GRANT Petitioner’s MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIAL AS TO ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PREMARITAL AGREEMENT. |
Will parties stipulate that matter can be heard in a CA court, applying Virginia Code for its construction, as agreed. If not, continue motion: Parties to brief issues of (1) jurisdiction for construction of contract (2) Situs for litigation |
|
9 |
KATZ |
DENY Petitioner’s Motion TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE W/SDT. DENY Request for AF’s/Sanx |
Notice to Deponent, Virtela Comm., Inc not sufficient for production of RP’ employment records Only 14 days between Service of SDT and requested date of production |
|
2 |
MERRICK |
Counsel to submit a stipulation to enter Judgment nunc pro tunc |
|
|
12 |
Stone |
Off calendar. Sub of Atty for Petitioner submitted |
|
|
14 |
NGUYEN v TRAN |
DENY request to strike entire complaint. Deny Request to strike 5th COA (Breach of settlement agreement) As to FRAUD COA, parties to address 1) whether stip waives any protection afforded by SLAPPP statute 2) fact that MP/W has raised fraud as to settlement agreement in underlying Complaint, 3) how litigation privilege comes into play (Was it waived and if not, both parties’ fraud causes of action re the “stip and order” would be barred. |
|




