Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Deborah on 12/30/09

    Time for a drink and!

    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.