Gould et al. v. Kettler et al. B266652 Court Case Public Record

  • Details

    Case TitleGould et al. v. Kettler et al.
    Case NumberB266652
    Case TypeCV
    StateCalifornia, CA
    CountyAll Counties
    CourtAppellate Court
    Court Address2nd Appellate District
    Phone
    Field Date
    Close Date10/31/2016
  • Parties

    CounselNameType
    Bart I. Ring
    The Ring Law Firm APLC
    6320 Canoga Ave.
    Suite 675
    Woodland Hills, CA 91367

    Leslie Gould
    Plaintiff and Appellant
    Bart I. Ring
    The Ring Law Firm APLC
    6320 Canoga Ave.
    Suite 675
    Woodland Hills, CA 91367

    Susan Gould
    Plaintiff and Appellant
    Samuel J. Arsht
    Silver & Arsht
    1860 Bridgegate Street, Ste. 100
    Westlake Village, CA 91361-1409

    Marc Stuart Ehrlich
    Winget Spadafora & Schwatzberg LLP
    1900 Avenue of the Stars
    Suite 450
    Los Angeles, CA 90067

    Joel D. Kettler
    Defendant and Respondent
    Renata Ortiz Bloom
    Gordon & Rees, LLP
    101 W Broadway Suite 2000
    San Diego, CA 92101

    AXA Network Insurance Agency of California, LLC
    Defendant and Respondent
    Renata Ortiz Bloom
    Gordon & Rees, LLP
    101 W Broadway Suite 2000
    San Diego, CA 92101

    AXA Network, LLC doing business in California as AXA Network Insurance Agency of California, LLC
    Defendant and Respondent
    Renata Ortiz Bloom
    Gordon & Rees, LLP
    101 W Broadway Suite 2000
    San Diego, CA 92101

    AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC
    Defendant and Respondent
  • Docket (Register of Actions)
    Date Description Notes
    09/09/2015 Notice of appeal lodged/received. noa 09/02/2015 Leslie Gould and Susan Gould
    09/11/2015 Filing fee. ck #1056 for 775
    09/22/2015 Civil case information statement filed.
    10/21/2015 Proceeding by 8.124 - no reporter's transcript.
    11/16/2015 Stipulation of extension of time filed to: Appellant's opening brief. Due on 01/19/2016 By 60 Day(s)
    01/19/2016 Appellant's opening brief. Plaintiff and Appellant: Leslie Gould Attorney: Bart I. Ring Plaintiff and Appellant: Susan Gould Attorney: Bart I. Ring
    01/19/2016 Appellant's appendix filed. 4 volumes
    05/03/2016 Respondent notified re failure to file respondent's brief. Respondents' briefs were due 4-18-16 pursuant to stipulation.
    05/18/2016 Respondent's brief. Defendant and Respondent: Joel D. Kettler Attorney: Marc Stuart Ehrlich Attorney: Samuel J. Arsht
    05/23/2016 Case on ready list; no reply by respondent to notice re failure to file brief. Defendant and Respondent: AXA Network Insurance Agency of California, LLC Attorney: Renata Ortiz Bloom Defendant and Respondent: AXA Network, LLC doing business in California as AXA Network Insurance Agency of California, LLC Defendant and Respondent: AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC Brief was due 5/18/16.
    07/27/2016 Appellant's reply brief. Plaintiff and Appellant: Leslie Gould Attorney: Bart I. Ring Plaintiff and Appellant: Susan Gould
    07/27/2016 Case fully briefed.
    08/04/2016 Letter sent to counsel re: This refers to the pending appeal in the above-captioned matter. On August 1, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Baral v. Schnitt (S225090) __ Cal.4th __ [2016 D.A.R. 7799]. In that opinion, the Supreme Court overruled Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90 and also found the primary right theory "is ill-suited to the anti-SLAPP context." (Baral v. Schnitt, supra, __ Cal.4th __ [2016 D.A.R. 7799, 7805].) The Court held, "[I]n cases involving allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, the plaintiff is required to establish a probability of prevailing on any claim for relief based on allegations of protected activity. Unless the plaintiff can do so, the claim and its corresponding allegations must be stricken." (Ibid.) In the last full paragraph of the opinion, the Court provided a brief summary of the showings and findings required by the anti-SLAPP statute. (Ibid.) Our court now requests that the parties submit letter briefs discussing how we should apply Baral v. Schnitt in deciding this appeal. (Gov. Code, § 68081.) Specifically, should this court remand the matter to the trial court to decide which allegations involve protected activity, which claims for relief are supported by them, and whether each challenged claim based on protected activity is legally sufficient and factually substantiated? The court encourages counsel to meet and confer before submitting their letter briefs. Appellants may submit a letter brief by August 19, 2016. Respondent may submit a responsive letter brief by August 26, 2016. Appellants may submit a reply letter brief by September 2, 2016. No letter brief shall exceed 10 pages.
    08/19/2016 Letter brief filed. Plaintiff and Appellant: Leslie Gould Attorney: Bart I. Ring Plaintiff and Appellant: Susan Gould
    08/25/2016 Letter brief filed. Defendant and Respondent: Joel D. Kettler Attorney: Marc Stuart Ehrlich Attorney: Samuel J. Arsht Responsive brief.
    09/01/2016 Letter brief filed. Plaintiff and Appellant: Leslie Gould Attorney: Bart I. Ring Plaintiff and Appellant: Susan Gould Reply brief.
    09/26/2016 Calendar notice sent electronically. Calendar date: October 25, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.
    10/03/2016 Calendar notice returned with proof of service. Appellants, 15 mins. Bart Ring to argue.
    10/04/2016 Calendar notice returned with proof of service. Respondent, 15 mins. Samuel Arsht to argue.
    10/13/2016 Order filed. On the court's own motion, oral argument scheduled for October 25, 2016 at 1:00 p.m., has been moved to the 9:00 a.m. calendar.
    10/25/2016 Cause argued and submitted.
    10/31/2016 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished); Reversed; 7 pages; G-R-F
  • Disposition
    Description: Reversed & Remanded to trial court w/directions
    Date: 10/31/2016
    Status: Final
    Publication Status: Signed Unpublished
    Author: Grimes, Elizabeth A.
    Participants: Flier, Madeleine I. (Concur) Rubin, Laurence D. (Concur)
    Case Citation: none