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
395 chars7 Rawat’s claim that no compensatory damages were awarded against her misreads the statement of decision. The statement of decision first states it will refer to all defendants as “Singh,” and then speaks of the conduct of particular defendants, awarding compensatory damages against Singh individually, and then finding Rawat and the Trust ratified his conduct, thus making them equally liable.