Follow us!

    Post: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Sharon on 12/30/09

    Here you go, legal geniuses. Get your minds around this

    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 Reader's
    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 Does anything in our prior unpublished
    opinion in this matter, Kelman v. Kramer (2006) D047758,
    November 16, 2006, prevent us from reaching the question of
    whether appellant's statements were privileged? The parties
    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.