Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Citation
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Parent Document
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2017-11-02
Other Sections in This Document (44)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
- Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
Full Text
304 chars8
A. The Motion to Vacate
Rawat’s statement of facts regarding her motion to vacate recites the evidence
from her declarations as if the trial court had credited those declarations. By doing so,
she has forfeited any contention of error regarding the motion to vacate, as we shall
explain.