This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 10/10/2022 at 06:23:50 (UTC).

Espinoza v. Superior Court for the County of Alameda

Case Summary

On 11/19/2021 Espinoza filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court for the County of Alameda. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Grillo, Evelio. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***3956

  • Filing Date:

    11/19/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Grillo, Evelio

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Gabriel Espinoza

Respondent

Superior Court for the County of Alameda

Interested Parties

Center for Environmental Health

Wells Lamont, LLC

Golf Galaxy, LLC

Target Corporation

AM Retail Group, Inc.

G-III Apparel Group, Ltd.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc

Bali Leathers, Inc.

Tour Edge Manufacturing, Inc.

Harbor Freight Tools U.S.A., Inc.

Central Purchasing, LLC

Nike, Inc.

Nike USA, Inc.

JR286, Inc.

Carhartt, Inc.

Gordini USA, Inc.

West Chester Holding, Inc.

Protective Industrial Products, Inc.

58 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Evan Jason Smith

Attorney at BRODSKY SMITH

9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Ryan Paul Cardona

Attorney at BRODSKY SMITH

9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Interested Party Attorneys

Eric S. Somers

Attorney at Lexington Law Group

503 Divisadero Street

San Francisco, CA 94117-2212

Joseph Mann

Attorney at Lexington Law Group

503 Divisadero Street

San Francisco, CA 94117

Gregory Sperla

Attorney at DLA Piper, LLP (US)

400 Capital Mall, Suite 2400

Sacramento, CA 95814

Jonathan Andrew Muenkel

Attorney at NORTHSTAR LAW GROUP

1106 Second Street, #831

Encinitas, CA 92024

Lauren A. Shoor

Attorney at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

555 South Flower Street, 41St Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Jeffrey B. Margulies

Attorney at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

555 South Flower Street - 41St Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Ruben Alonso Castellon

Attorney at RAF LAW GROUP

811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1050

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Jade Faysal Jurdi

Attorney at SCALI RASMUSSEN, PC

1901 Harrison Street, 14Th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Bruce Nye

Attorney at Scali Rasmussen

1901 Harrison Street, 14Th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Edward P. Sangster

Attorney at K&L GATES LLP

Four Embarcadero, Suite 1200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Daniel William Fox

Attorney at K & L Gates LLP

4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Vanuhi Karapetian

Attorney at K & L Gates

10100 Santa Monica Blvd 8Fl

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Andrew Walls Homer

Attorney at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

7825 Fay Ave Ste 200

La Jolla, CA 92037-4270

Joseph Green

Attorney at KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

3050 K Street Nw, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20007

Jeffrey John Parker

Attorney at Sheppard Mullin et al

333 S Hope St 43Rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

43 More Attorneys Available

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/04/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after alternative writ or palma issued.; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT: On January 26, 2022, this court issued a notice pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, granting the superior court "the power and jurisdiction to vacate its October 7, 2021 order granting the petition to coordinate and to enter a new and different order denying that petition." On January 20, 2022, in response to our notice, the superior court vacated its October 7, 2021 order and issued a new and different order denying the petition for coordination. Because the superior court has now granted petitioner the relief requested in the petition, the above-captioned petition is dismissed as moot. Before Humes, P.J., Banke, J., and East, 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after alternative writ or palma issued.; Notes: BY THE COURT: On January 26, 2022, this court issued a notice pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, granting the superior court "the power and jurisdiction to vacate its October 7, 2021 order granting the petition to coordinate and to enter a new and different order denying that petition." On January 20, 2022, in response to our notice, the superior court vacated its October 7, 2021 order and issued a new and different order denying the petition for coordination. Because the superior court has now granted petitioner the relief requested in the petition, the above-captioned petition is dismissed as moot. Before Humes, P.J., Banke, J., and East, 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received:; Notes: Notice of Entry of Order of Order of Superior Court Vacating October 7, 2021 Order Granting Petition for Coordination in Leather Glove Cases

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/06/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT: Having reviewed the petition and record filed in this writ proceeding, we advise the parties that this court might proceed by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) Generally the court will employ "the accelerated Palma procedure . . . only when petitioner's entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue ... or where there is an unusual urgency requiring acceleration of the normal process." (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.) Petitioner Gabriel Espinoza is a plaintiff in three Proposition 65 enforcement actions, Espinoza v. Wells Lamont, LLC, San Francisco Super. Ct. Case No. CGC-21-590972, Espinoza v. Golf Galaxy, LLC, Alameda County Super. Ct. Case No. RG21100552, and Espinoza v. Target Corporation, San Francisco Super. Ct. Case No. CGC-21-592018. Real party in interest Center for Environmental Health (CEH) sought to coordinate these actions with its action in CEH v. Bali Leathers, Inc., Alameda County Super. Ct. Case No. RG 19-029736. CEH is also the plaintiff in CEH v. Tommy Bahama, Alameda County Super. Ct. Case No. RG 19034870. Petitioner filed the Wells Lamont action in San Francisco Superior Court on April 13, 2021. The parties to the Wells Lamont case reached a settlement on June 24, 2021, executing a consent judgment resolving the action. On August 11, 2021, the court granted petitioner's motion to approve the settlement and entered the consent judgment. Petitioner filed the Target Corporation action in Alameda County Superior Court on May 19, 2021. On August 31, 2021, petitioner filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of the Target Corporation action.Of the actions for which coordination was sought, only the Wells Lamont and Target Corporation actions were filed in San Francisco Superior Court. All the other actions identified in the Judicial Council's September 9, 2021 "Order Assigning Coordination Motion Judge" and respondent superior court's October 7, 2021 "Order Granting Petition to Coordinate" were filed in Alameda County Superior Court. Code of Civil Procedure section 404 provides that "[w]hen civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council . . . by any party to one of the actions after obtaining permission from the presiding judge[.]" (Italics added.) The phrase "different courts" has been construed to mean the courts of different counties. (See Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 563, 565, fn. 3. ["[T]hese cases necessarily will involve multiple parties and counsel who are often located in two or more counties."]; Wegner, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Group 2021) 4:432.30 ["Coordination is the procedure whereby actions pending in different counties can be tried together (whereas consolidation [citation] is the procedure for uniting cases pending in the same court)."].) Here, there were no cases "pending in different courts" at the time the coordination petition was granted. The Wells Lamont action had been resolved on August 11, 2021, prior to the appointment of the coordination judge on August 23, 2021. As for the Target Corporation action, petitioner filed a request to dismiss that action with prejudice on August 31, 2021. "A plaintiff may dismiss his or her complaint, or any cause of action asserted in it, in its entirety, or as to any defendant or defendants, with or without prejudice prior to the actual commencement of trial." (Code Civ. Proc., 581, subd. (c).) "A section 581 dismissal 'is available to [a] plaintiff as a matter of right and is accomplished by filing with the clerk a written request therefor. If in proper form, the dismissal is effective immediately.' " (S.B. Beach Properties v. Berti (2006) 39 Cal.4th 374, 380.) From the record before us, it therefore appears that the petition for coordination did not satisfy the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 404 that actions be "pending in different courts." Respondent superior court thus appears to have erred in granting the petition for coordination. Accordingly, within 45 days of the date of this order, the superior court shall have the power and jurisdiction to vacate its October 7, 2021 order granting the petition to coordinate and to enter a new and different order denying that petition. (See Brown, Winfield, & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1244-1246.) If the superior court so acts, petitioner is instructed to immediately inform this court and provide any new orders issued by respondent, after which this petition will be dismissed as moot. (Id. at p. 1244.) Should respondent decline to follow this course of action, any opposition to the issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance shall be served and filed on or before February 23, 2022. (Ibid.) In addition to regular service of this order, the clerk of this court shall immediately ensure service of this order on the Honorable Evelio M. Grillo by electronic mail or facsimile.Before: Banke, Acting P.J., and Sanchez, J. (Margulies, J., having recused herself, did not participate in this decision.)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: paid through Truefiling

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Exhibits 1 - 19

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate or Other Appropritae Relief From October 7, 2021 Order Granting Petition for Coordination In Leather Glove Cases

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: JCCP005189; Trial Court Judge: Grillo, Evelio

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: CGC21592018; Trial Court Judge: Grillo, Evelio

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: RG19034870; Trial Court Judge: Grillo, Evelio

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: RG21100552; Trial Court Judge: Grillo, Evelio

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: RG21103603; Trial Court Judge: Grillo, Evelio

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: RG19029736; Trial Court Judge: Grillo, Evelio

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/07/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Alameda County Superior Court - Main; County: Alameda; Trial Court Case Number: CGC21590972; Trial Court Judge: Grillo, Evelio

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JR286, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Wells Lamont, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where CENTRAL PURCHASING, LLC is a litigant