RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net

Email Address
Site Index


If you haven't already done so, please read Defect # 10 on the
Home page


Added 4-7-05

  City's Request for Reconsideration Denied - Fischetti

This case is an example of a foundational defense (see Defect # 6 and Defect # 10 on the Home page).

For the other documents in this matter, go to:
Main (Fischetti) page with Appeals Decision

  The  Minute Order is on this page, below!

This copy of the Minute Order was made by OCR (optical character recognition) from the filed original.  No attempt has been made to remove all errors that occurred during the OCR process.
Edits or explanatory notes by the editor are in double square brackets [[  ]].
This copy of the Minute Order may be freely copied and distributed, so long as credit is given to highwayrobbery.net .
Other cases and /or transcripts are available at: WeHo Trial Transcript , Culver City Documents, and Sacramento Left-Yellow Appeal.




SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

 MINUTE ORDER

Department- Appellate

Court convened at:  On March 15, 2005 present

Judge:   Honorable Charles Margines Acting Presiding
Rebecca Chumpitazi, Deputy Clerk;
Bailiff: none       Reporter: none

and the following proceedings were heard:

AP-14168        PEOPLE        VS.        FISCHETTI
CM46167PE

The Court, having received and considered respondentís motion for reconsideration of petition for rehearing and application for certification now rules as follows:

Respondents City seeks reconsideration based on lack of proper service, not lack of actual notice. The motion is not supported by a declaration or other evidence, and respondent nowhere asserts that it did not become aware of entry of this Courtís judgment in time to file a timely petition for rehearing and/or certification prior to the February 15 deadline. Respondent also did not seek an extension of time in accordance with rule 186(a) of the California Rules of Court, Respondentís official acts, judicial notice of which may be taken by this Court pursuant to Evidence Code 452, indicate an awareness of the judgment and opinion in the week of February 7. A party who is not properly served with notice but who nevertheless appears without objecting and argues the cause on the merits, as respondent did in its petition. thereby waives a claim of defective notice. (Vlahovich v. Cruz 1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 317, 320-321.) ďThis rule applies even when no notice was given at all.Ē (Tate V. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d925, 930.)

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

[[ ]] FISCHETTI

THOMAS WOOD, COSTA MESA CITY ATTORNEY, 77 FAIR DR, COSTA MESA, CA

92628

[[[End]]


[[Highwayrobbery.net made this file of the filed original, by OCR (optical character recognition).  No attempt has been made to remove all errors that occurred during the OCR process.
Edits or explanatory notes by the editor are in double square brackets [[  ]].
This copy of the Minute Order may be freely copied and distributed, so long as credit is given to highwayrobbery.net .]]

 


---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net