用户注册 登录
珍珠湾全球网 返回首页

岳东晓 -- 珍珠湾全球网 ... http://ydx.zzwave.com [收藏] [复制] [分享] [RSS] 岳东晓 -- 珍珠湾全球网

日志

加州上诉法院驳回刘牧野上诉

热度 4已有 1694 次阅读2018-5-2 02:41 |系统分类:法律

前次我写了 刘牧野不公平竞争及诽谤案上诉口头辩论 。昨天下午结果出来了,但我今天才注意到。简而言之,加州上诉法院驳回刘牧野上诉。上诉法院的具体法律论证我就不再重复解释了。在这篇《刘牧野不公平竞争及诽谤案上诉进展 里,有我的回应文件。总之,不是法官搞混了,而是刘牧野方概念错误。刘牧野方的辩论完全不能成立。

上诉法院裁决结果是:维持判决结果 Affirmed in full,上诉方(刘)支付对方费用 (costs)。下面的案卷里,原告方只递交了一次文件(重点标出)。

Docket (Register of Actions)

Yue v. Trigmax Solutions, LLC et al.
Division 5
Case Number A151067

DateDescriptionNotes
04/18/2017Notice of appeal lodged/received.    Filed 4/7/2017 by William Pohl, counsel for Defendant Muye Liu
04/18/2017Notified parties of local rules and procedures.    
04/18/2017Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).    
04/28/2017Filing fee.    appellant
05/01/2017Returned document for non-conformance.    civil case information statement rejected on TrueFiling; missing copy of judgment/order being appealed
05/01/2017Civil case information statement filed.Defendant and Appellant: Trigmax Solutions LLC
Attorney: William N. Pohl     
05/15/2017Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:    5/2/2017, designating CT without RT
05/18/2017Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:    AMENDED 5/8/2017, designating CT without RT
08/22/2017Record on appeal filed.    CT-1 (FILED ELECTRONICALLY)
09/28/2017Requested - extension of time.  

Appellant's opening brief. Requested for 11/28/2017 By 57 Day(s)   
09/28/2017Granted - extension of time.  

Appellant's opening brief. Due on 11/17/2017 By 46 Day(s)   
11/17/2017Email sent to:    William Pohl: Dear Mr. Pohl: I've received your opening brief in this case. However, I can't file it because it does not include a proof of service of the brief on the superior court. This is required by the California Rules of Court, Rule 8.212(c)(1). So I will note that the brief has been received, and I will set a deadline of Monday, November 20 to get that proof of service. I will file your opening brief when I get that. You do not need to re-file the brief. Thanks for your attention to this. Please call or e-mail me if you have questions. Annie Reasoner Deputy Clerk, Division Five
11/17/2017Appellant's opening brief.Defendant and Appellant: Muye Liu 

Defendant and Appellant: Trigmax Solutions LLC
Attorney: William N. Pohl     
11/17/2017Filed proof of service.    Proor of service of opening brief on superior court, from William Pohl, attorney for appellan Trigmax
12/18/2017Respondent's brief.Plaintiff and Respondent: Dongxiao Yue
Pro Per     

01/08/2018Email sent to:    attorney William Pohl for appellant; Counsel, The attached briefs lack a word count certificate. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c).) Please submit word count certificates for each brief immediately. The reply brief will not be filed until a word count certificate is filed.
01/08/2018Appellant's reply brief.Defendant and Appellant: Trigmax Solutions LLC
Attorney: William N. Pohl     received; contains proof of service that was merged in TrueFiling
01/08/2018Appellant's reply brief.Defendant and Appellant: Trigmax Solutions LLC
Attorney: William N. Pohl     
01/08/2018Filed document entitled:    Word Count certificate for appellant's reply brief
01/08/2018Filed document entitled:    Word Count Certificate for opening brief
01/08/2018Case fully briefed.    
02/01/2018Oral argument waiver notice sent.    
02/13/2018Request for oral argument filed by:    attorney William Pohl for appellant
03/08/2018Calendar notice sent. Calendar date:    April 19, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
04/12/2018Order filed.    BY THE COURT: This appeal is scheduled for oral argument on April 19, 2018, on the court's 10:00 a.m. calendar. The court has reviewed the issues that have been raised and has determined that each side will be allocated 10 minutes for argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256(c).)
04/19/2018Cause argued and submitted.    
04/30/2018Opinion filed.    (Signed Unpublished) The order partially denying defendants' anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed. Yue is awarded costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.



路过

鸡蛋
4

鲜花

支持

雷人

难过

搞笑

刚表态过的朋友 (4 人)

 

评论 (0 个评论)

facelist

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 用户注册

Archiver|手机版|珍珠湾全球网

GMT+8, 2018-9-26 02:04 , Processed in 0.027218 second(s), 7 queries , Apc On.

Powered by Discuz! X2.5

回顶部