<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>PGP Mediation &#187; True court cases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pgpmediation.com/category/true-court-cases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:00:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT REVISITS  MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/08/27/the-second-appellate-district-revisits-mediation-confidentiality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/08/27/the-second-appellate-district-revisits-mediation-confidentiality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[True court cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence code section 1121]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence code section 1123]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence Code section 703.5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On August 19, 2010, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in which it upheld mediation confidentiality. In Radford v. Shehorn (Case No. 2d Civil No. B216323) ( Radford v Shehorn), the court held that it was error to admit the declaration of a mediator into evidence on a motion [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/08/27/the-second-appellate-district-revisits-mediation-confidentiality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS – BEWARE OF THE PITFALLS !</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/04/09/partial-settlements-%e2%80%93-beware-of-the-pitfalls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/04/09/partial-settlements-%e2%80%93-beware-of-the-pitfalls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[True court cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer in compromise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prevailing party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1485</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[      Many cases filed in court involve an attorneys’ fee provision (pursuant to either contract or state statute) by which the prevailing party is entitled to be awarded her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by the losing party.
 
      This concept seems to be pretty straightforward. But, a recent California Supreme Court case, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/04/09/partial-settlements-%e2%80%93-beware-of-the-pitfalls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACTIONS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/03/26/actions-do-have-consequences/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/03/26/actions-do-have-consequences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[True court cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life's lessons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small claims  court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1475</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[      Several weeks ago, I, again, helped my colleague who teaches mediation by supervising two of her students while they conducted an actual mediation in small claims court.
      Typically, when parties are scheduled for trial in small claims court, they go into the courtroom and sit down. The court clerk begins the session by providing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/03/26/actions-do-have-consequences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ATTORNEYS’ FEES</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/03/11/attorneys%e2%80%99-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/03/11/attorneys%e2%80%99-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[True court cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newsworthy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discretion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion for attorneys' fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[       The California Supreme Court issued an interesting opinion in January 2010 on attorneys’ fees. Although it has far reaching implications, it did not get much publicity.
       In Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal 4th 970, (Chavez v. L.A. ) Plaintiff Robert Chavez, a police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/03/11/attorneys%e2%80%99-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE CADILLAC IS A LEMON</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/02/10/the-cadillac-is-a-lemon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/02/10/the-cadillac-is-a-lemon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[True court cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lemon law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Song  Beverly Consumer Warranty Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prejudgment interest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 4, 2010, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued its opinion in Lukather v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. B209979. (Lukather v. GM ) Because this is a “lemon law” case, it caught my interest. (I conduct a lot of “lemon law” mediations.)
Plaintiff’s story unfolds as follows:
On April 25, 2005, Paul [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/02/10/the-cadillac-is-a-lemon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
