Equinox Holdings, Inc. v. Superior Court for the County of Alameda
Case Summary
Case Details
-
Case Number:
***5511
-
Filing Date:
06/29/2022
-
Case Status:
Disposed - Other Disposed
-
Case Type:
Other
-
Court:
-
Courthouse:
-
County, State:
Statewide, California
Judge Details
Trial Court Judge
Herbert, Paul
Party Details
Petitioner
Equinox Holdings, Inc.
Respondent
Superior Court for the County of Alameda
Interested Parties
Renee Porter
Joshua Tolin
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Petitioner Attorneys
Thomas G Mackey
Attorney at Jackson Lewis LLP
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Mia Farber
Attorney at Jackson Lewis P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Dylan B. Carp
Attorney at Jackson Lewis P.C.
50 California Street, 9Th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Veronica T. Hunter
Attorney at Jackson Lewis P.C.
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1700
Houston, TX 77002-2743
Interested Party Attorneys
Ronald Wael Makarem
Attorney at Makarem & Associates
11601 Wilshire Blvd #2400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Samuel D. Almon
Attorney at Makarem & Associates APLC
11601 Wilshire Blvd. #2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Court Documents
Court documents are not available for this case.
Docket Entries
- 06/29/2022
-
DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT:* The petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and accompanying stay request are denied. Beyond the record accompanying the petition being incomplete (Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)), the court is not persuaded that petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating an entitlement to writ review/relief. * Before Jackson, P.J., Burns, J. and Wiseman, J. (Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.)
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Case complete.
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT:* The petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and accompanying stay request are denied. Beyond the record accompanying the petition being incomplete (Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)), the court is not persuaded that petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating an entitlement to writ review/relief. * Before Jackson, P.J., Burns, J. and Wiseman, J. (Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.)
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: Petitioner's application under Rule 8.208(d)(2) is granted.
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Received:; Notes: Proposed order on application under Rule 8.208(d)2)
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: Paid via TrueFiling by Jackson Lewis, attorneys for petitioner Equinox
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Application filed to:; Notes: Application to file certificate of interested entities under seal; from Jackson Lewis, attorneys for petitioner Equinox
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Filed document entitled:; Notes: Petitioner's appendix, one volume, pages 1-166
- 06/29/2022
-
DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate, or prohibition, or other appropriate relief
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases