small claim in California

2016(People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 90 .) Moreover, we do not agree that the trial court overstated the restitution amount, although we agree there does appear to be a small error in the calculation of restitution.

2014(People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 .) With respect to Small’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this issue cannot be addressed because it relies on matters outside the record on appeal.

2013(P itzen, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1386 .) “Whether collateral estoppel is fair and consistent with public policy in a particular case depends in part upon the character of the forum that first decided the issue later sought to be foreclosed.

2009The trial court at the hearing on the motion cited Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th 443 , and Murphy v. Check ’N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th *164 138 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy), and stated, “we have an individual plaintiff with a small claim who would otherwise be unable to afford legal servicesf,] and the class action would be an appropriate mechanism by which he could, in effect, bundle his claim with other claims and make it more efficient and expedient.” The court also stated that the “small claims procedure” did not allow discovery in cases where the amount in dispute was

2009The trial court stated at the beginning of the hearing, “I note that plaintiff is on the same page as the court,” and cited Gentry and Murphy, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th 138 . 6 The court stated with respect to the analysis under Gentry , “we have an individual plaintiff with a small claim who would otherwise be unable to afford legal services [,] and the class action would be an appropriate mechanism by which he could, in effect, bundle his claim with other claims and make it more efficient and expedient.” Thus, the court determined that group action was likely to be significantly more effective

2009The trial court at the hearing on the motion cited Gentry, supra, 42 Cal.4th 443 , and Murphy v. Check ’N Go of California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th *164 138 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 120 ] (Murphy), and stated, “we have an individual plaintiff with a small claim who would otherwise be unable to afford legal servicesf,] and the class action would be an appropriate mechanism by which he could, in effect, bundle his claim with other claims and make it more efficient and expedient.” The court also stated that the “small claims procedure” did not allow discovery in cases where the amount in dispute was

1995(The calculation of $1,960 rather than $2,000 reflects a small error that need not concern us here.) The alternative approach to allocation that Riverside favors was followed in Espinoza v. Machonga, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th 268 .

1994The hearing shall include the claim of a defendant which was heard in the small claims court.” (Stats. 1991, ch. 915, § 25.) 4 The Legislature’s clarification of the law also relieves superior courts from performing what may have proved to be an impossible task, apparently required by Anderson v. Superior Court, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d 698, of separating a defendant’s contentions in support of his defense from his contentions in support of his claim.

1988In People v. Reilly, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1127, 1141-1146 , which involved in part electrophoretic testing for PGM, the witnesses appear to have recognized that a small error rate affects the reliability of results. 2 It does not appear whether Dr. Blake used electrophoretic testing for PGM, whether he used some other method, or whether such other method would also involve a recognized rate of error.

1988In People v. Reilly, supra, 196 Cal. App.3d 1127, 1141-1146 , which involved in part electrophoretic testing for PGM, the witnesses appear to have recognized that a small error rate affects the reliability of results. [2] It does not appear whether Dr. Blake used electrophoretic testing for PGM, whether he used some other method, or whether such other method would also involve a recognized rate of error.