Although most litigants undoubtedly have sympathy for their respective judicial officer, it is apparently expected that we take our filed litigation and walk ourselves with that litigation directly to the desk of the judicial officer involved. The other party would undoubtedly scream illegal exparte if that scenario actually occurred.
The court claims not to have received filed objections in the below minute order. However, the court does employ clerks, the court does use computers and the court images every single document that is filed so it is viewable by the relevant judicial officer. The court recognized that it modified the initial tentative statement of decision dated 9/9/2013, with its minute order of 10/2/2013, which was mailed, therefore the order of 10/2/2013 constituted a modified tentative statement of decision which is not binding upon the court.
Timely objections were indeed filed pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(a) which states that “[o]n the trial of a question of fact by the court, the court must announce its tentative decision by an oral statement entered in the minutes, or by a written statement filed with the clerk.”
The time to address the failure of principal converted issues contained in the tentative statement of decision is defined by rule Rule 3.1590 (c) (4) which specifies that the tentative decision will become the statement of decision unless, within 10 days after announcement or service of the tentative decision, a party specifies those principal controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision or makes proposals not included in the tentative decision
In a similar manner the court also chose to simply overrule the objections instead of addressing them in the statutory manner according to CA rules of court Rule 3.1590(k) which states that “[t]he court may order a hearing on proposals or objections to a proposed statement of decision or the proposed judgment.” (Italics added.)
Nowhere in the statute does it specify that the court may deal with objections by overruling them as the purpose is to preserve those objections for the appeal court as otherwise a party waives the right to challenge the defects in an appeal, In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3dll30, 1132-1133.
Perhaps litigants need to just sit on the desk of a judicial officer until they actually comply with the statutory requirements of the law.
HONORABLE JUDGE HAROLD W HOPP, PRESIDING
CLERK: M. DINIUS
COURT REPORTER: NONE
NO APPEARANCE BY EITHER PARTY.
ON 01/16/14 THE COURT RECEIVED A DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF XXXXXX CONCERNING A PROPOSED ORDER AND STATEMENT OF DECISION AND JUDGMENT. THE COURT PREVIOUSLY RULED ON xxxxxxxx 9/17/13 OBJECTIONS TO THE TENTATIVE DECISION. IT APPEARS THAT xxxxx FILED ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE TENTATIVE DECISION ON 10/3 10/8 10/22 AND 10/25. NONE OF THESE OBJECTIONS WERE RECEIVED BY JUDGE HOPP WHEN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY FILED NOR DO ANY APPEAR TO BE TIMELY. ALL ARE OVERRULED.
THE PROPOSED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PRESENTED BY xxxxx DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE STATEMENT OF DECISION AND THE COURT DOES NOT APPROVE THEM. THE STATEMENT OF DECISION IS THE TENTATIVE DECISION ISSUED ON 9/9 AS MODIFIED BY THE RULING ON xxxxx INITIAL OBJECTION ON 10/2.
THIS SHALL CONSTITUTE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF xxxxxx ON THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND FOR DEFAMATION IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $25000.00(THAT IS SHE SHALL RECOVER $25000.00 ON EACH CAUSE OF ACTION BUT BECAUSE THE DAMAGES ARE THE SAME THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS $25000.00).
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF xxxxxx ON ALL REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION AND IN FAVOR OR xxxxxxx ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION. JUDGMENT ON 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF xxxxxxxx. JUDGMENT FOR xxxxxxxxxxxx.
CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. PRINT MINUTE ORDER.