Blalock et al. v. Superior Court Los Angeles County et al.
Case Summary
Case Details
-
Case Number:
***0991
-
Filing Date:
06/16/2022
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Case Type:
Other
-
Court:
-
Courthouse:
-
County, State:
Statewide, California
Judge Details
Trial Court Judge
Martin, Lia
Party Details
Petitioners
Jacob Blalock
Benjamin Novak
Respondents
Superior Court Los Angeles County
Hon. Lia R. Martin
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Interested Parties
Halt Gold Group, LLC (dba Patriot Gold Group LLC)
Mike Celano
Charley Chartoff
John "Jack" Hanney
Brothers Investment, LLC
Halt Gold Group, LLC
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Petitioner Attorneys
Adam Phillip Zaffos
Attorney at Fernald Law Group, APC
15910 Ventura Blvd. Ste 1702
Encino, CA 91436
Clay R. Wilkinson
Attorney at Fernald Law Group APC
15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1702
Encino, CA 91436
Respondent Attorney
Frederick Bennett
Attorney at Superior Court of Los Angeles County
111 North Hill Street, Room 546
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Interested Party Attorneys
Tracey A. Kennedy
Attorney at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
333 South Hope Street 43Rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
Brianna S Wilson
Attorney at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
333 South Hope St, 43Rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
David Patrick Nemecek
Attorney at The Fortress Law Firm, Inc
50 California St Ste 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Court Documents
Court documents are not available for this case.
Docket Entries
- 07/19/2022
-
DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final The petition for writ of mandate filed on June 16, 2022, has been read and considered. It is denied not only because petitioners failed to provide an adequate record or a declaration stating why an adequate record could not be provided (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)(D), (b)(2), (b)(3)), but also because petitioners substantively failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief
- 07/19/2022
-
DocketDescription: Case complete.
- 07/19/2022
-
DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: The petition for writ of mandate filed on June 16, 2022, has been read and considered. It is denied not only because petitioners failed to provide an adequate record or a declaration stating why an adequate record could not be provided (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)(D), (b)(2), (b)(3)), but also because petitioners substantively failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief
- 06/17/2022
-
DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: Proof of service of petition on LASC
- 06/16/2022
-
DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Volume 3 of 3
- 06/16/2022
-
DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Volume 2 of 3
- 06/16/2022
-
DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Volume 1 of 3
- 06/16/2022
-
DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: mandate
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases