Daoud v. S.C.L.A. et al.

DispositionDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after alternative writ or palma issued.; Disposition Type: Final THE COURT: We have received from the respondent court a copy of its February 21, 2020 minute order, which reflects that the court has vacated its July 30, 2019 order denying petitioner's motion to quash service and stay or dismiss the action, and has entered a new and different order granting the motion. In light of the above, the petition for writ of mandate filed on August 9, 2019, is hereby dismissed as moot.

DocketDescription: Case complete.

DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: THE COURT: We have received from the respondent court a copy of its February 21, 2020 minute order, which reflects that the court has vacated its July 30, 2019 order denying petitioner's motion to quash service and stay or dismiss the action, and has entered a new and different order granting the motion. In light of the above, the petition for writ of mandate filed on August 9, 2019, is hereby dismissed as moot. LAVIN, Acting, P. J EGERTON, J. DHANIDINA, J.

DocketDescription: Response filed:; Notes: by the trial court with attached minute order dated February 21, 2020

DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: The application for extension of time filed by counsel for real parties in interest on February 5, 2020 is denied as premature. If the trial court does not vacate the challenged order and counsel requires additional time to file a return, counsel may seek an extension at that time. Lavin, Acting P.J.

DocketDescription: Application filed to:; Notes: Application for extension of time within which to file written return

DocketDescription: Response filed:; Notes: Court's response to Alternative Writ of Mandate Order setting a hearing to change the order denying the motion to quash to comply with the Altnerative Writ issue in this matter. Minute order dated January 29, 2020 attached to trial court's response.

DocketDescription: Alternative writ or OSC issued.; Notes: Alternative writ order issue* [...] ***Text of order exceeds docket entry limits -See original order*** Based on the above, and good cause appearing therefor, you are directed to: (a) vacate your July 30, 2019 order denying petitioner's motion to quash service and stay or dismiss the action, and to thereafter enter a new and different order granting the motion, or (b) in the alternative, SHOW CAUSE before this court, in its courtroom at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, on a date and at a time to be determined, why you have not done so and why a peremptory writ of mandate requiring you to do so should not issue. If the respondent court elects to proceed under alternative (a) above - in the manner provided for in Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1247-1250 & fn. 10 - the respondent court is directed to transmit to this court a copy of the minute order reflecting its action on or before February 25, 2020. If the respondent court elects not to proceed under alternative (a) above (1) real parties may serve and file a written return to the petition on or before March 5, 2020, and (2) petitioner may serve and file a traverse within seven days after the return is filed. This court's temporary stay order of December 20, 2019, is hereby modified to permit the respondent court to conduct any proceedings necessary to proceed under alternative (a) above. By order of this court. ATTEST my hand and the seal of this court this 27th day of January 2020. Let the foregoing writ issue. LAVIN, Acting, P. J EGERTON, J. DHANIDINA, J.

DocketDescription: Stay order filed.; Notes: THE COURT: The court has read and considered the application for an immediate temporary stay filed on December 20, 2019. It is unclear whether the respondent trial court's December 5, 2019 order stays discovery in the action until this court rules on the petition or only until 30 days from the date of the trial court's order. To eliminate any confusion over the issue, all trial court proceedings (including discovery) are hereby stayed until further order of this court or until this court denies the petition, whichever occurs first. LAVIN, Acting P. J.

DocketDescription: Application filed to:; Notes: for immediate temporary stay pending ruling on Petition

DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Exhibtis in support of reply to opposition to PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Volume 1 of 1

DocketDescription: Petitioner's reply brief filed.; Notes: By Attorneys for Petitioner, DAVID DAOUD

DocketDescription: Granted - extension of time.; Notes: Ext granted to 12/20/19. Edmon, P.J.

DocketDescription: Requested - extension of time; Notes: Petitioner's request for extension of time within which to file reply

DocketDescription: Opposition filed.; Notes: Preliminary Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate

DocketDescription: Granted - extension of time.

DocketDescription: Requested - extension of time; Notes: within which to file response

DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: We have read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed on August 9, 2019. Real parties in interest are directed to serve and file a preliminary response, on or before October 30, 2019, discussing why the action should not be dismissed or stayed while real parties in interest are given the opportunity to pursue their claims in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, pursuant to (1) the forum selection clause in the Sales Agreement they entered into with Azul Developers, S.A. de C.V. on October 24, 2015, or (2) the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Petitioner may serve and file a reply within 10 days after the response is filed. L, Egerton, D

DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:

DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate and/or prohibition.