This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 02/16/2022 at 13:36:38 (UTC).

Finkel Law Group P.C. v. Superior Court for the County of Alameda

Case Summary

On 08/20/2021 Finkel Law Group P C 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 5 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Clay, C.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***3290

  • Filing Date:

    08/20/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Clay, C.

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Finkel Law Group P.C.

Respondent

Superior Court for the County of Alameda

Interested Parties

Tempositions, Inc.

James A. Essey

Alan Tidwell

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Jonathan Herschel Bornstein

Attorney at Bornstein & Bornstein Law Group

2701 Telegraph Ave., Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94612

Lonnie Finkel

Attorney at Finkel Law Group, P.C.

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800

Oakland, CA 94612

Interested Party Attorney

Kendall Alexander Layne

Attorney at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

333 Bush Street, Suite 1100

San Francisco, CA 94104

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/27/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT:* The petition for writ of mandate/prohibition is denied. The record accompanying the petition is inadequate to enable informed review, as it lacks a reporter's transcript of the June 7, 2021 demurrer hearing or a declaration in lieu thereof, and a copy of the January 15, 2021 order referenced in the demurrer order. (Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)(C)-(D) & (b)(3); Exh. 11 to Petn., pp. 236 & 238.) Additionally, the petition does not address whether petitioner requested leave to amend in the trial court, and whether the issue is nevertheless properly asserted in this court in the first instance notwithstanding any such request below. This topic should have been addressed, consistent with petitioner's burden on writ review. (Upshaw v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 489, 497, fn. 4 ["[I]t is a writ petitioner's burden to present a procedurally and substantively adequate writ petition. . . ."].) * Before Simons, Acting P.J., Burns, J., and Rodriguez, J. (Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT:* The petition for writ of mandate/prohibition is denied. The record accompanying the petition is inadequate to enable informed review, as it lacks a reporter's transcript of the June 7, 2021 demurrer hearing or a declaration in lieu thereof, and a copy of the January 15, 2021 order referenced in the demurrer order. (Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(b)(1)(C)-(D) & (b)(3); Exh. 11 to Petn., pp. 236 & 238.) Additionally, the petition does not address whether petitioner requested leave to amend in the trial court, and whether the issue is nevertheless properly asserted in this court in the first instance notwithstanding any such request below. This topic should have been addressed, consistent with petitioner's burden on writ review. (Upshaw v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 489, 497, fn. 4 ["[I]t is a writ petitioner's burden to present a procedurally and substantively adequate writ petition. . . ."].) * Before Simons, Acting P.J., Burns, J., and Rodriguez, J. (Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: Paid through Truefiling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate, Prohibition or Other Appropriate ReliefNote: Exhibits 1 - 11 enclosed

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TEMPOSITIONS, INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where FINKEL LAW GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases where Superior Court for the County of Alameda is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Kendall Alexander Layne