AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Diane Berman, the Plaintiff-Appellee, and Robert Orduno, the Defendant-Appellant. The specific events leading to the case are not detailed in the provided text. The core issue on appeal concerns the adequacy of notice provided to the Defendant regarding the trial setting.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and his person, although these arguments were deemed incomprehensible (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Suggested that the Defendant received notice of the trial setting, referencing a document sent by the district court and a draft pretrial order sent via certified mail, neither of which were officially recognized as providing adequate notice (paras 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Defendant-Appellant (para 3).
• Whether the Defendant-Appellant received adequate notice of the trial setting (para 4).

Disposition

• The court reversed the final order and remanded for further proceedings due to the absence of adequate notice to the Defendant-Appellant regarding the trial setting (para 5).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the court found the Defendant-Appellant's jurisdictional arguments incomprehensible and without a principled basis. However, the court identified a critical concern regarding the absence of official notice to the Defendant-Appellant about the trial setting. The documents referenced by the Plaintiff-Appellee did not constitute official notice as they were not signed by the judge nor filed. Consequently, the judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings (paras 3-5).