Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

Civil, Family, and Administrative Appeals and Writs

Significant Cases

Here are some of Linda's more significant victories:
Gregory v. Saldana
In Gregory v. Saldana (April 29, 2015, C073988 unpub.), the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court acted within its discretion in setting aside the default and default judgment against Mr. Saldana (Ms. Conrad's client). The appellate court agreed that substitute service of process on Mr. Saldana was invalid and he had no actual notice that he had been served. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the applicable standard of review was de novo.
Schmidt v. Board of Trustees
Schmidt v. Board of Trustees (June 25, 2014, C069835, unpub.) involved an appeal from a motion for summary judgment that had been granted against our client, Dr. Schmidt. The issue involved the enforceability and interpretation of a settlement agreement in an employment grievance proceeding. Ms. Conrad assisted Kimball J.P. Sargeant, who was lead counsel on this case. The Court of Appeal found that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the cause of action for fraud, requiring reversal of the summary judgment and remand for trial on the merits.
In re Ashley D.
In this case, In re Ashley D. (unpub. July 9, 2012, F063686), Ms. Conrad's client was the father of a child who was under a guardianship with maternal relatives. The trial court denied the guardians' request to terminate parental rights under the Family Code and Probate Code section 1516.5 because the investigator concluded the child had a sufficiently strong relationship with her father that it would be detrimental to her if his parental rights were terminated. The appellate court found there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings and judgment because the father faithfully visited and called his child, made his child support payments, had recovered from his substance abuse problem, and acted in a stable and responsible manner during visits. Further, the child missed her father and did not want her visits to end.
Shea v. County of Siskiyou
In Shea v. County of Siskiyou (Unpub. Feb. 9, 2010, C062117), a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) case, Ms. Conrad's client, Eagle Peack Rock & Paving, was the real party in interest. The County of Siskiyou granted an approval for Eagle Peak for a portable asphalt batch plant. J.F. Shea Construction (Shea), a competing contracting and construction materials business, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief against the County of Siskiyou and Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors (County), claiming a violation of the CEQA. The trial court granted the motions of the County and Eagle Peak to dismiss based on mootness and standing. The appellate court affirmed and held that the issue was moot because the road construction projects had been completed and the batch plant had been removed.
Marriage of Gilbertie
In this case, In re Marriage of Gilbertie (unpub., October 31, 2005, C048873), Ms. Conrad represented the wife. The husband argued that he was not individually liable to pay his wife certain arrears owed under the marital settlement agreement. The issue hinged on the interpretation of a contractual provision. The court noted that extrinsic evidence was admissible to interpret the ambiguous provision of the agreement. It held that the trial court properly issued a writ of execution against the husband.
Pritchett v. Rapp
In Pritchett v. Rapp (unpub. December 16, 2004, C045432), a real property easement case, the trial court entered judgment on a nonsuit against Ms. Conrad's clients, the plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants, holding that they had no interest in the easement. The appellate court held that the pleadings established that the plaintiffs had a right to the easement, therefore, standing was not an issue at trial.
In re Salvador M.
In re Salvador M. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1353, was the first case granting presumed maternity to a woman who was raising her brother as her own child after the death of their mother. As a result, women who are raising children as their own may receive services that are not normally available to non-parents. In this family law case, Ms. Conrad represented the appellant, who had raised her brother as her own child after the death of their mother. The child referred to appellant as "mom" and her other children as his brother and sister. After appellant's brother was removed from her custody, the trial court denied appellant presumed maternity status, which was required in order to provide appellant with legal representation and services to reunify with her brother. The appellate court held that the appellant was her brother's presumed mother because her brother thought she was his mother and she held herself out to the world as his mother even though she admitted to school officials and governmental authorities that she was his sister.