Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


skip to main contentskip to footer
Get Started Book Demo
Log In
  1. Home
  2. State Courts
  3. California
  4. Solano County Superior Courts
  5. Fcs044138 - Roesler-Barrett, Jamie A. V. Seligman,Karl-Federic

Boolean Operators

AND"motion for summary judgment" AND "breach of contract"
ORvehicle OR automobile
AND NOTdisability AND NOT discrimination
"""motion to dismiss"
()"motion to compel" AND (interrogatories OR deposition)
*negligen*
""~#"motion arbitration"~5 [finds data where words "motion" and "arbitration" are within 5 words of each other]

Judge Filters

judge:last-namejudge:nieto

Party / Law Firm / Attorney Filters

party:"law firm name"party:"Law Offices of John Smith"
party:"attorney name"party:"John Smith"
party:"company name"party:"Apple"
party:"individual party name"party:"elon musk"
"individual party name"~2"elon musk"~2

Location Filters

state:state-abbreviationstate:ca
county:county-name [no spaces]county:losangeles
courthouse:"courthouse name"courthouse:"stanley mosk"
caret down

Party

caret down
Requires practice area
caret down
caret down
Requires state
caret down
Requires practice area
 Case Filed Between
caret down
 Document Filed Between
PAGA / Complex / Class Action
Only cases with documents
Clear Filters
Track This Topic

We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Fcs044138 - Roesler-Barrett, Jamie A. V. Seligman,Karl-Federic

Download DocketDownload Docket
Print DocketPrint Docket
Track Case ChangesTrack Case Changes

Barrett, Bruce E.,Roesler-Barrett, Jamie A., filed a(n) Cc - Civil Complaint case represented byRitzinger, David P, againstSeligman, Karl-Federic J., in the jurisdiction of Solano County. This case was filed in Solano County Superior Courts with Harry S. Kinnicutt presiding.

Case Details for Barrett, Bruce E. v. Seligman, Karl-Federic J. , et al.

Judge

Harry S. Kinnicutt

Filing Date

September 05, 2014

Category

Cc - Civil Complaint

Last Refreshed

January 12, 2022

Filing Location

Solano County, CA

Parties for Barrett, Bruce E. v. Seligman, Karl-Federic J. , et al. Track Parties

Plaintiffs

Barrett, Bruce E.
Roesler-Barrett, Jamie A.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Ritzinger, David P

Defendants

Seligman, Karl-Federic J.

Case Events for Barrett, Bruce E. v. Seligman, Karl-Federic J. , et al.

DateTypeDescription
September 21, 2016Docket Event ABSTRACT ISSUED
ROESLER-BARRETT, JAMIE A.
September 21, 2016Docket Event PAYMENT
ROESLER-BARRETT, JAMIE A.
August 22, 2016Docket Event ACKNOWLEDGMENT
August 22, 2016Docket Event PAYMENT
ROESLER-BARRETT, JAMIE A.
August 22, 2016Docket Event ABSTRACT ISSUED
ROESLER-BARRETT, JAMIE A.
July 25, 2016Docket Event EXHIBITS/ORDERS FOR RELEASE/DE
July 21, 2016Docket Event SUBMITTED
January 28, 2016Docket Event MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY)
ROESLER-BARRETT, JAMIE A.
January 08, 2016Docket Event MINUTE ORDER
January 08, 2016Docket Event HEARD
See all events

Related Content in Solano County

Case

In the Matter of Paul Edward Underhill
Jul 01, 2025 | Civil Pet: Name Change (43) | Civil | CU25-06025

Case

Virginia Paulino vs. Vanessa Artemisa Rapier et al
Jun 27, 2025 | Auto Tort (22) | Civil | CU25-05957

Case

Derek Goodspeed, Jr vs. Marhazhane L Day
Jul 03, 2025 | Civil Pet: Harassment (43) | Civil | CU25-06118

Case

Paul M Berson vs. FCA US LLC et al
Jun 26, 2025 | Contract: Breach Cont/Warranty (06) | Civil | CU25-05938

Case

Rashaad Nunnally vs. Joie Nunnally
Jun 30, 2025 | Dissolution w/Minor Child | Family | FL25-01291

Case

Johanna Marrero Cordero vs. Cinthia Robinson
Jul 03, 2025 | Civil Pet: Harassment (43) | Civil | CU25-06112

Case

Ivanna Santos vs. Luis Enrique Sanchez Villanueva et al
Jun 26, 2025 | Auto Tort (22) | Civil | CU25-05934

Case

In the Matter of Ricardo Paniagua
Jun 30, 2025 | Civil Pet: Name Change (43) | Civil | CU25-05950

Case

Guardianship of Jayde Nicole Chatman
Jul 01, 2025 | Guardianship | Probate | PR25-00439

Case

Estate of Tod Edwin Allan
Jun 23, 2025 | Spousal Property | Probate | PR25-00435

Case

Gustavo Landeros Mireles vs. Alexis Leon
Jul 02, 2025 | Civil Pet: Harassment (43) | Civil | CU25-06074

Case

Teaira Bonds vs. Albert Leon Bonds Jr.
Jun 30, 2025 | Dissolution w/Minor Child | Family | FL25-01278

Case

Mayanie M. Carrasquillo vs. Richard Noguera
Jul 01, 2025 | Establish Parental Relationship (Non-Assisted Reproduction) | Family | FL25-01288

Ruling

Arthur Johnson vs. Sam J La Monica et al
Jun 30, 2025 | CU24-09501
CU24-09501Motion to be Relieved as CounselTENTATIVE RULINGThe Parties are to appear.Department 7 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://solano-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/161 1554664 ?pwd=T3U4QIBGWWNWaGlieXJTcGxIVHRXZz09Meeting ID: 161 155 4664Passcode: 818575One tap mobile+16692545252,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (San Jose)+14154494000,,1611554664#,,,,*818575# US (US Spanish Line)Dial by your location+1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)+1 415 449 4000 US (US Spanish Line)+1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose)+1 551 285 1373 US (New Jersey)+1 646 828 7666 US (New York)+1 646 964 1167 US (US Spanish Line)+1 833 568 8864 US Toll-free

Ruling

FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)
Jul 01, 2025 | FCS057573
FCS057573Motions for ContemptTENTATIVE RULING:Petitioners motions for contempt are denied.No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to thecourt. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to acontempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. $ 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Intl Union v. Superior Court(1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.)Page 1of1

Ruling

FCM179363
Jul 05, 2025 | FCM179363
FCM179363Motion for Entry of Judgment on Stipulation filed by PlaintiffTENTATIVE RULINGThe parties are to appear to address the following issues:The court notes that defendant made all the payments required under the incentive plancontained in paragraph 4 of the Stipulated Agreement except for a $2.00 shortage in thelast payment made by automatic electronic withdrawal on August 8, 2024. Plaintiff nowseeks entry of a judgment in the full amount remaining on the balance owed.The court further notes that plaintiff requests costs to be included in the judgment inaddition to a “stipulation fee.” Costs may only be awarded pursuant to the procedure setout in Rule 3.1700 of the California Rules of Court after judgment is entered. The“stipulation fee” is unclear.Finally, the court notes that throughout this litigation, defendant was represented by TheLitigation Practice Group, PC, which has an address in Tustin, California, and anaddress in Los Angeles, California. Nevertheless, plaintiff served the motion papers ondefendant at his last known personal address in Vallejo. The proof of service does notshow service upon The Litigation Practice Group at its Tustin and Los Angeles,California, addresses.

Ruling

cl23-02086
Jul 06, 2025 | cl23-02086
cl23-02086Motion by Plaintiff to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of StipulatedSettlementTENTATIVE RULINGReflecting due process concerns, service of a motion affecting the rights of a defendantwho has not appeared in an action typically is required to be made in the same manneras required for service of summons and complaint. See, e.g., applications for writs ofattachment [C.C.P. §482.070(d)], and applications for writs of possession [C.C.P.§512.030(b)].Defendant filed no responsive pleading in this action.The only proof of service filed here for the motion papers and notices of hearings showservice by mail, on an address used for substituted service of summons and complaintback in July, 2023, two years ago, during which time it is possible Defendant moved.Because of these due process concerns, the court continues this motion to August 28,2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 8, and directs Plaintiff to effect service of the motion papersand the notice of this continued hearing date on Defendant, in a manner authorized forservice of summons and complaint, at least 16 court days prior to this continued hearingdate. Plaintiff is also reminded that costs are claimed after judgment, per CRC 3.1700.

Ruling

BATH, AZEEM, ET AL V STATE OF CALIF., ET AL (DMS)
Jul 01, 2025 | FCS058670
FCS058670Motion for StayTENTATIVE RULINGDefendants’ motion to stay the action pending determination of its petition to compelarbitration is granted.As explained in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79Cal.App.4th 188, 192:This statute is clear and unambiguous: it requires that the trial court stay an actionpending before it while an application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action ispending in a court of competent jurisdiction. (Marcus v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App. 3d 204, 209 [141 Cal. Rptr. 890].) There is no specific or implied exceptioncontained within the statute to preclude its application for dilatory action by a partyseeking to arbitrate the matter. Relief based on such a claim should be presented to thecourt entertaining the application to arbitrate, as well as any substantive argumentsrelating to whether arbitration is appropriate under the facts presented.Based upon the reasoning of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., any argumentsregarding unreasonable delay and whether Plaintiffs or Defendants are parties to themaster agreement are premature.Plaintiffs provide no binding authority for the position that, in deciding whether or not tostay the proceedings pending a petition to compel arbitration, the court should firstconduct a preliminary review of the merits of the petition. Leenay v. Superior Court(2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 533, cited by Plaintiffs for the first time during oral argument, isinapposite. Leenay held that that section 1281.4 “authorizes a stay only if a court hasordered arbitration of a question between the parties to an agreement, and the samequestion and the same parties are involved in the pending action” (id. at 564-565),explaining that “[t]he ‘controvery which is an issue’ (§ 1281.4) in the action cannot beuntethered from the ‘parties to an agreement’ (§ 1280, subd. (d)) who have beenordered to arbitration.” (Id. at 563.) Leenay did not authorize a court to disregard theclear and unambiguous meaning of the statute requiring the court to stay an action uponthe motion of a party to the action when a petition to compel arbitration of thecontroversy is pending.

Ruling

In the Matter of ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
Jul 01, 2025 | CU24-09467
CU24-09467Motion to CompelTENTATIVE RULINGThe unopposed motion by Aspire General Insurance to compel compliance withsubpoena is GRANTED.

Ruling

LANHAM, JAMES vs QUINTERO, BRITTANY
Jul 06, 2025 | FCS059504
FCS059504Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most KnowledgeableTENTATIVE RULINGPlaintiff JAMES LANHAM’s motion to compel non-party Farmers Insurance Exchange(“Farmers”) to produce a person most knowledgeable for deposition is denied. Plaintiffdid not serve the deposition subpoena on Farmers’ manager or agent for service ofprocess. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 416.40, 1987.) Plaintiff did not include an affidavit ofgood cause with the subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985, subd. (b).) Plaintiff did notdemonstrate adequate efforts to meet and confer before filing this motion. (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2025.480.)Department 8 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://solano-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1619704645?pwd=aUwyYUFUcU5Eazl6SEkrcmcrRnRLUT09Meeting ID: 161 970 4645Passcode: 675002---One tap mobile+16692545252,,1619704645#,,,,*675002# US (San Jose)+16692161590,,1619704645#,,,,*675002# US (San Jose)

Ruling

FCM180315
Jul 04, 2025 | FCM180315
FCM180315Motion by Plaintiff to Set Aside C.CP. 664.6 Dismissal, and Enter Judgment AgainstDefendantTENTATIVE RULINGPlaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms ofthe Stipulated Settlement is granted.The parties entered into a written stipulation for settlement in which the parties agreedthat Defendant would make scheduled payments on her outstanding debt. The partiesfurther agreed that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement pursuantto Code of Civil Procedure, §664.6. Plaintiff alleges that after making $5.410.00 inpayments, Defendant defaulted on the terms of the settlement by failing to continue tomake all of the agreed-upon payments. Under the terms of the settlement, Plaintiff isentitled to entry of judgment for the outstanding principal balance of $2,431.00. Courtcosts must be claimed after entry of judgment, in the manner required by CRC 3.1700

Ruling

CL24-05152
Jun 30, 2025 | CL24-05152
CL24-05152Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Page 2 of 3 TENTATIVE RULINGThe unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted.The undisputed facts are that plaintiff entered into a credit card agreement withdefendant and then defaulted on the payments due under the agreement, owing$5,584.02 as of December 7, 2023.Based on these undisputed facts, the court finds as a matter of law that plaintiff isentitled to summary judgment on the common counts for open book account and foraccount stated, which are alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff is also entitled to summaryjudgment on the other common counts alleged in the complaint, namely, for goods soldand delivered and for credit extended. Although these common counts were notaddressed in the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the proof toestablish these counts is the same as the proof submitted to establish the othercommon counts that were addressed in the Statement.Judgment shall be entered in the amount of $5,584.02.Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs claiming costs of $885.67 in this case. Thisamount is not included in the judgment at this time because costs may only be awardedunder the procedure set out in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700. Under CRC3.1700, plaintiff must file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the notice of entryof judgment is served, and the court must give defendant an opportunity to contest thecosts claimed.Plaintiff is to submit a new proposed order and a new proposed judgment in accordancewith the court’s ruling.IVAN DEL ANGEL v. MIKE LOWRIE TRUCKING, INC., a California corporation

Ruling

FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)
Jul 02, 2025 | FCS057573
FCS057573Motions for ContemptTENTATIVE RULING:Petitioners motions for contempt are denied.No affidavit of the facts constituting any contempt has been presented to thecourt. The filing of a sufficient affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to acontempt proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. 1211(a); Koehler v. Superior Court(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1169; Oil Workers Intl Union v. Superior Court(1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 541.)Page 1of1

Ruling

FCM179363
Jul 01, 2025 | FCM179363
FCM179363Motion for Entry of Judgment on Stipulation filed by PlaintiffTENTATIVE RULINGThe parties are to appear to address the following issues:The court notes that defendant made all the payments required under the incentive plancontained in paragraph 4 of the Stipulated Agreement except for a $2.00 shortage in thelast payment made by automatic electronic withdrawal on August 8, 2024. Plaintiff nowseeks entry of a judgment in the full amount remaining on the balance owed.The court further notes that plaintiff requests costs to be included in the judgment inaddition to a “stipulation fee.” Costs may only be awarded pursuant to the procedure setout in Rule 3.1700 of the California Rules of Court after judgment is entered. The“stipulation fee” is unclear.Finally, the court notes that throughout this litigation, defendant was represented by TheLitigation Practice Group, PC, which has an address in Tustin, California, and anaddress in Los Angeles, California. Nevertheless, plaintiff served the motion papers ondefendant at his last known personal address in Vallejo. The proof of service does notshow service upon The Litigation Practice Group at its Tustin and Los Angeles,California, addresses.

Ruling

FCM179363
Jul 03, 2025 | FCM179363
FCM179363Motion for Entry of Judgment on Stipulation filed by PlaintiffTENTATIVE RULINGThe parties are to appear to address the following issues:The court notes that defendant made all the payments required under the incentive plancontained in paragraph 4 of the Stipulated Agreement except for a $2.00 shortage in thelast payment made by automatic electronic withdrawal on August 8, 2024. Plaintiff nowseeks entry of a judgment in the full amount remaining on the balance owed.The court further notes that plaintiff requests costs to be included in the judgment inaddition to a “stipulation fee.” Costs may only be awarded pursuant to the procedure setout in Rule 3.1700 of the California Rules of Court after judgment is entered. The“stipulation fee” is unclear.Finally, the court notes that throughout this litigation, defendant was represented by TheLitigation Practice Group, PC, which has an address in Tustin, California, and anaddress in Los Angeles, California. Nevertheless, plaintiff served the motion papers ondefendant at his last known personal address in Vallejo. The proof of service does notshow service upon The Litigation Practice Group at its Tustin and Los Angeles,California, addresses.

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp