Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Deborah on 12/30/09
"Sounds like", what is this charades...
Sounds like Mikey wanna be a lawyer now. Gag, that would be a
low blow for the profession.
On 12/30/09, Mike B. wrote:
> Sounds like they want to rule that your statements were NOT
> privileged, but want to make certain they are procedurally
> solid ground. Hence, the question presented: "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 in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v.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
> Didn't you get rid of your lawyers some time back? What are
> you going to tell the appeal court....."Yes, you can answer
> that question because I know Henry Waxman"?
> On 12/30/09, Sharon wrote:
>> 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 Does anything in our prior unpublished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