Judgment in Fantex v. Kendall Wright

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Aug-14-2018 8:34 am Case Number: CGC-18-563550 Filing Date: Aug-14-2018 8:33 Filed by: NADITA MASON Image: 06455110 STIPULATED JUDGMENT - GENERAL FANTEX, INC. VS. KENDALL WRIGHT 001006455110 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Jub-100 CEETORNE O8 PARTY WAT ATTORNEY (Noam ab ob 0 FoR COURT OSE OMY |_Bruce B. Kelson (State Bar No. 202441) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP 650 California St., 19th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108-2736 ‘eusmwone 10: 415-364-6700 raxno. fost: 415-364-6785 cam aooness oxen [email protected] F I L ‘San Francisco County Court| ‘arionner For ane) Plaintiff Fantex, Inc. ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco ‘setrancress: 400 McAllister Street AUG 1-4 2018 carvawozecoe: San Francisco, CA 94102 CLERK QE THECOURT branche 5. follge pay PLANTIFF: Fantex, Inc. perennant, Kendall Wright JUDGMENT RENNER ) ByClerk By Default [) After Court Trial CGC-18-563550 By Court ‘On Stipulation _[[_)_ Defendant Did Not Appear at Trial ‘JUDGMENT 1,2) BY DEFAULT '2._ Defendant was properly served with 9 copy ofthe summons and complsint. by Defendant falied to answer the complaint or appear and defend the acton within the time allowed by ew. Defendant's default was enter by the clerk upon pisntis application, ©. [1] Glork’s Judgment (Code Civ. Proc. § 585(a)). Defendant was sued only on a contractor judgment of a cour of this stat forthe recovery of money. (1 court Judgment (Code Civ. Proc. § $85(b)). The court considered (1) 1 plaintit?’s testimony and other evidence. 2) EE pian waiten declaration (Code Civ. roc, § 585(4). ‘ON STIPULATION ‘a. Phainti and defendant egroed (stipulated) that 2 judgment be entered inthis case. The court approved the stipulated rent and the signed writen stipulation was filed in the case, c. FJ the stipuletion was stated in open cout [—] the stipulation was stated on the record, 3. (2) AFTER COURT TRIAL. The jury wos waived. The court considered the evidence fa, The case was tried on (date and time): before (name of judicial ofcer b. Appearances by: [1 Paint (name each): [1 Plaintits atomey (namo cach): 0 a @ @ [1 Continued on Attachment 3, [1 Defendant (name each: [1 Doteatant 's atorey (name each) ) a @ 2 [1 Continued on Attachment 3. c. [21 Defendant did not appear at trial, Defendant was properly served with notice of trial 4. [1 Astatement of decision (Code Civ. Proc., § 632) [—] was not [—] was requested. Fanaa eee JUDGMENT Gace ol Ga rca SEG WBS Pow ony 2)[- pANTFF: Fantex, Inc berenpant: Kendall Wright CGC-18-563550 JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOLLOWS BY: 5. Parties. Judgments for plontt (nome cach) Fantex, Inc. and against defendont (names): Kendall Wright [1 Continued on Attachment Sa. ». [1 for dotencant (name each) 8. Amount. Defendant named in item Sa above must ‘pay plaintiff on the complaint: THECoURT = [_] THE CLERK ‘Stipulated Judgment. Judgment is entered according tothe stipulation ofthe parties. ©. [1 for eross-complainant (name each): ‘and against cross-defendant (name each): [1 Continued on Attachment Sc. 4. [for eoss-dofendant (name eact): ¢. [1] Cross-defendant named in item S¢ above must pay ‘ross-complainant on the cross-compiaint () 21 Damages s 349,157.22 (1) [2 Damages s (2) [1 Prejudgment s 2) Prejudgment s Interest at he Interest a the ennual ate of % ‘nna ete oF % ©) [2 Attorney foes 5 36,898.61 &) Attorney toes @ () Costs is. (4) 21 Costs (8) (1 other (specify: is (8) [2] other (specify): s (‘TOTAL $386,055.83 TOTAL s ®. [] Prainti to receive noting from defendant named in item 8, befendant named in item 5b to recover costs $ LO ant atoney tees $ 7. Other (speci): ow Aube ob 8 WG AUG 142018 4 [) Gross-complainant to receive nothing from ‘ross-defendant namedin tom 6 [F Cross-defendant named in item 5d to recover costs 8 [J and attomey oes $ LESLIE C. NICHOLS. Date: ler, by ay CLERK'S CERTIFICATE (Optional) ‘erty tat this sa tue copy oe org gre nln the cot. + Deputy To ray 7 OT JUDGMENT

Judgment in Fantex v. Kendall Wright

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgment in Fantex v. Kendall Wright

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgment in Fantex v. Kendall Wright

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like