Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by johncodie on 1/14/10


    You might not admit it but you do lie about such things as
    moving to a bigger house overlooking a lake.

    The house may be bigger or not but it is minus the pool and
    the view of the lake. Rancho Sante Fe is a plush retirement
    community established by the movie stars looking for weekend
    hideaways. You sold property there as an agent but you
    don't live there and your view is of a gully in cramped
    subdivison without any pool or yard, on the end of a
    culvsac. I can understand you would want to be included in
    mold toxicology and remediation; go to ASTM confereses as
    and expert. Anybody can google and see you moved from
    waterfront property back to the city where your husband
    provides continued support. Why not be content with growing
    old like the rest of us, and spend more time with the family
    rather than trying to a part of the "in-crowd". Yes people
    ask my daughter if she goes to "ole miss" and she grins joy
    with "No"!

    On 12/30/09, Sharon wrote:
    > Here you go, legal geniuses. Get your minds around this
    > one.
    > 12/29/2009 Order filed. In reviewing the briefs and
    > record on appeal, the following questions have arisen: In
    > her motion for summary judgment, defendant and appellant
    > Sharon Kramer appears to have argued that her description
    > of plaintiff and respondent Bruce J. Kelman's testimony in
    > the Haynes trial as "altered" was privileged and entitled
    > her to judgment as a matter of law. 1. Was Kramer's
    > description of Kelman's testimony privileged? (See
    > Digest Assn v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 262-
    > 264, and Paterno v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th
    > 1342, 1355-1357.) 2. Does anything in our prior
    > opinion in this matter, Kelman v. Kramer (2006) D047758,
    > November 16, 2006, prevent us from reaching the question
    > whether appellant's statements were privileged? The
    > are directed to respond this question by letter brief
    > within 30 days of the date of this order. The order of
    > November 30, 2009, setting this case on calendar on
    > Wednesday, January 13, 2010, for oral argument is vacated.
    > The case will be recalendared upon receipt of the parties'
    > letter briefs. The clerk of the court will notify all
    > parties of the new date and time.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.