This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 09/06/2022 at 15:03:30 (UTC).

Amco Insurance Company v. Superior Court for the County of Solano

Case Summary

On 04/29/2022 Amco Insurance Company filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court for the County of Solano. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Nelson, Earl. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***5078

  • Filing Date:

    04/29/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Nelson, Earl

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Amco Insurance Company

Respondent

Superior Court for the County of Solano

Interested Party

Christopher Chong

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Robert Wayne Sweetin

Attorney at Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime LLP

3638 American River Dr

Sacramento, CA 95864-5901

Matthew Jaime

Attorney at Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime LLP

3638 American River Drive

Sacramento, CA 95864

Interested Party Attorney

John Chu

Attorney at Corporate Counsel Law Group

25 Kearny Street - Suite 302

San Francisco, CA 94108

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/18/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT: The petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay are denied. As to the stay request, petitioner does not allege that it asked respondent superior court for a stay of the challenged order before seeking a stay from this court. (Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 146, 157 ["An application for a stay of a judgment should, wherever possible, be made first in the superior court."]; see Nuckolls v. Bank of California, Nat. Assn. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 574, 577 ["Inasmuch as the Legislature has provided a method by which the trial court, in a proper case, may grant the stay, the appellate courts, assuming that they have the power, should not, except in some unusual emergency, exercise their power until the petitioner has first presented the matter to the trial court."].) Moreover, the petition does not comply with the rules regarding temporary stay requests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(a)(7); see Johnny W. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 559, 563, fn. 2 [noting importance of strict compliance with rule].) As to the petition, we observe preliminarily that the record is insufficient to enable informed appellate review, as petitioner has not provided a reporter's transcript of the hearing on the petition to compel arbitration. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)(D); Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; see Humane Society of U.S. v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1252, fn. 19 ["Counsel who decide to forgo the services of a court reporter create an imperfect record for appellate review."].) Petitioner's counsel's declaration does not adequately or meaningfully summarize the proceedings, by revealing details about the parties' arguments and any statements by the court explaining its ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(3)(A).) Even absent the record deficiency, we would decline to exercise our discretion to review the issues raised in the petition by extraordinary writ. (See generally, Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266, 1269, 1271-1274; see also Lamadrid v. Municipal Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 786, 789 ["It is well established that the court in which extraordinary review is sought has discretion to gauge the potential adequacy of subsequent . . . review on a case-by-case basis."]; and see Ordway v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 101, fn. 1, disapproved on other grounds, Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 301-315.) Banke, Acting P.J., and Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT: The petition for writ of mandate and request for immediate stay are denied. As to the stay request, petitioner does not allege that it asked respondent superior court for a stay of the challenged order before seeking a stay from this court. (Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 146, 157 ["An application for a stay of a judgment should, wherever possible, be made first in the superior court."]; see Nuckolls v. Bank of California, Nat. Assn. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 574, 577 ["Inasmuch as the Legislature has provided a method by which the trial court, in a proper case, may grant the stay, the appellate courts, assuming that they have the power, should not, except in some unusual emergency, exercise their power until the petitioner has first presented the matter to the trial court."].) Moreover, the petition does not comply with the rules regarding temporary stay requests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(a)(7); see Johnny W. v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 559, 563, fn. 2 [noting importance of strict compliance with rule].) As to the petition, we observe preliminarily that the record is insufficient to enable informed appellate review, as petitioner has not provided a reporter's transcript of the hearing on the petition to compel arbitration. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)(D); Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; see Humane Society of U.S. v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1252, fn. 19 ["Counsel who decide to forgo the services of a court reporter create an imperfect record for appellate review."].) Petitioner's counsel's declaration does not adequately or meaningfully summarize the proceedings, by revealing details about the parties' arguments and any statements by the court explaining its ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(3)(A).) Even absent the record deficiency, we would decline to exercise our discretion to review the issues raised in the petition by extraordinary writ. (See generally, Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266, 1269, 1271-1274; see also Lamadrid v. Municipal Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 786, 789 ["It is well established that the court in which extraordinary review is sought has discretion to gauge the potential adequacy of subsequent . . . review on a case-by-case basis."]; and see Ordway v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 98, 101, fn. 1, disapproved on other grounds, Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 301-315.) Banke, Acting P.J., and Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: paid through Truefiling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2022
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Exhibits 1 - 12

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief From Order Granting Petition to Compel ArbitrationImmediate Stay Requested

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Solano County Superior Court - Main; County: Solano; Trial Court Case Number: FCM177594; Trial Court Judge: Nelson, Earl

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Superior Court for the County of Solano is a litigant

Latest cases where AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant