This case was last updated from California Courts Of Appeal on 11/15/2021 at 21:08:12 (UTC).

Guan et al. v. Superior Court for the County of San Mateo

Case Summary

On 09/27/2021 Guan filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court for the County of San Mateo. This case was filed in California Courts Of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 5 located in Statewide, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***3542

  • Filing Date:

    09/27/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

 

Party Details

Petitioners

Joebey Guan

South San Francisco, CA 94080

Xing Hua Guan

South San Francisco, CA 94080

Respondent

Superior Court for the County of San Mateo

Interested Parties

Olympian Gulf Properties, Inc.

California Department of Transportation

P. O. Box 1438

Sacramento, CA 95812-1438

Other

Kevin Chan

South San Francisco, CA 94080

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Interested Party Attorney

Paul Kwang-hun Lee

Attorney at Finkelstein & Fujii, LLP,

1528 S El Camino Real, Ste 306

San Mateo, CA 94402-3067

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/29/2021
  • 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. (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. . . ."].) Preliminarily, the petition does not address the propriety of writ review, including but not limited to whether the challenged order is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., 904.1, subd. (a)(2); Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 370; Powers v. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal.4th 85, 112-113; Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 288, 299-300; Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266, 1269, 1271-1274; Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 701.) Assuming, arguendo, the propriety of writ review, the petition lacks an adequate record, and is unverified. (Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.486(a)(4) & 8.486(b)(1)(A)-(D).) Finally, to the extent the petition's merits should be reached, it does not appear from the petition's arguments and accompanying record that petitioner has demonstrated an entitlement to writ relief on the merits. *Before Simons, Acting P.J., Needham, J., and Burns, J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT:* The petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and accompanying stay request are denied. (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. . . ."].) Preliminarily, the petition does not address the propriety of writ review, including but not limited to whether the challenged order is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., 904.1, subd. (a)(2); Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 370; Powers v. City of Richmond (1995) 10 Cal.4th 85, 112-113; Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 288, 299-300; Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266, 1269, 1271-1274; Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 701.) Assuming, arguendo, the propriety of writ review, the petition lacks an adequate record, and is unverified. (Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186-187; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.486(a)(4) & 8.486(b)(1)(A)-(D).) Finally, to the extent the petition's merits should be reached, it does not appear from the petition's arguments and accompanying record that petitioner has demonstrated an entitlement to writ relief on the merits. *Before Simons, Acting P.J., Needham, J., and Burns, J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: paid through Truefiling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Exhibits identified with numbers and letters

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Prohibition and/or Mandate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketTrial Court Name: San Mateo County Superior Court - Main (Redwood City); County: San Mateo; Trial Court Case Number: 20UDU00341

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where OLYMPIAN GULF PROPERTIES, INC is a litigant

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

Latest cases where CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEE, PAUL K.