This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 01/01/2023 at 09:03:08 (UTC).

Cathay Bank v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.

Case Summary

On 05/10/2022 Cathay Bank filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court of Los Angeles County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District - Division 5 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Broadbelt, Robert. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***0160

  • Filing Date:

    05/10/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Broadbelt, Robert

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Cathay Bank

Respondents

Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Hon. Robert Broadbelt

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Interested Parties

Crossroads Greenville Properties, LTD

Bob Yari

Parviz Yari

Forum General, Inc.

The Archer Holdings Company, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Stephen G. Larson

Attorney at Larson LLP

555 S. Flower St., Suite 4400

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065

Paul Anthony Rigali

Attorney at Larson O'Brien LLP

555 South Flower Street 4400

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Kimberly Elise Barreto

Attorney at Larson LLP

555 S Flower St. Ste 4400

Los Angeles, CA 90071

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

Daniel A. Platt

Attorney at Loeb & Loeb

10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Ste 2200

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Robert Joseph Catalano

Attorney at Loeb & Loeb

10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 2200

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/06/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after order to show cause issued.; Disposition Type: Final; Author: Baker, Lamar W.; Participants: Moor, Carl H. Rubin, Laurence D.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/06/2022
  • DocketDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after order to show cause issued.; Notes: By way of an order filed June 28, 2022, the respondent court complied with the alternative writ of mandate issued June 3, 2022. Accordingly, the alternative writ is discharged, this court's previously entered stay of proceedings is dissolved, and the petition for writ of mandate, filed May 10,2022, is dismissed as moot. No costs are awarded in this proceeding.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/01/2022
  • DocketDescription: Reply filed to:; Notes: Reply to the alternative writ issued June 3, 2022.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/06/2022
  • DocketDescription: Written return filed.; Notes: re order dated June 3, 2022

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2022
  • DocketDescription: Alternative writ or OSC issued.; Notes: The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed May 10, 2022. The court tentatively concludes as follows. No court has yet held or deemed the jury trial waiver provision in the parties' contract to be unenforceable on an estoppel theory or otherwise. Absent such a determination of unenforceability, denial of petitioner's motion to appoint a judicial referee was necessarily premature because the key condition precedent, a holding of unenforceability, has not occurred. Therefore, after hearing the parties' positions on the matter pursuant to Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1250, footnote 10, you are ordered to either: (a) Vacate your March 30, 2022, order, and enter a new and different order determining whether the contractual jury trial waiver is unenforceable, and if so, whether petitioner's motion to appoint a judicial referee should be granted; or (b) Show cause before this court in its courtroom at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90013, on September 6, 2022, why a peremptory writ ordering you to do so should not issue. The return to the petition shall be filed on or before July 1, 2022. Any reply to the return shall be filed on or before July 29, 2022. If you comply with this writ by selecting alternative (a) above, you are directed to provide this court with a copy of your minute order setting forth such compliance. Petitioners shall also provide this court with a copy of any such minute order upon receipt.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/10/2022
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Three volumes of exhibits.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/10/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less