Schuldner

Schuldner v. InComm Fin. Services CA1/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 2021A160691California4,312 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richman, J.

background that the trial court had recognized that the costs were proper, but originally granted Schuldner’s motion to tax because respondents had not provided evidence demonstrating that the costs were in fact incurred. Respondents sought reconsideration, and the court ruled in their favor, in a thoughtful order explaining why. We affirm that order, and thus bring to a close this aspect of the litigation, a litigation that has now gone on for six years—and generated a register of actions that contains over 750 entries. Enough is enough.

BACKGROUND

The General Setting We have earlier described this case in our unpublished opinion filed on January 16, 2018: Schuldner v. ITC Financial Licenses, Inc. (Jan. 16, 2018, A150522) [nonpub. opn.].1 There, we rejected an earlier appeal by Schuldner and affirmed a judgment in favor of Office Depot, an opinion from which we occasionally quote, beginning with this description of the “Origins of This Dispute: “This case arises out of Schuldner’s scheme to generate credit card rewards points by purchasing gift cards on credit and returning the cards for cash. Pursuant to this scheme, Schuldner purchased ‘Do It Yourself Home Improvement’…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.