seal

Court Case Record Gould et al. v. Kettler et al. B266652 UID(dbf5)


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

Court Case Number: B266652


 
Case NumberB266652
Case TitleGould et al. v. Kettler et al.
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 GouldPlaintiff and Appellant
Bart I. Ring
The Ring Law Firm APLC
6320 Canoga Ave.
Suite 675
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Susan GouldPlaintiff 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. KettlerDefendant and Respondent
Renata Ortiz Bloom
Gordon & Rees, LLP
101 W Broadway Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

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

AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLCDefendant 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, ยง 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