This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 09/07/2022 at 02:04:40 (UTC).

Jackson v. Grand Promenade L.P.

Case Summary

On 09/14/2021 Jackson filed an Other lawsuit against Grand Promenade L P. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Goorvitch, Stephen. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***5392

  • Filing Date:

    09/14/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Goorvitch, Stephen

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Appellant

Nicole Y. Jackson

Huntington Park, CA 90255

Defendant and Respondent

Grand Promenade L.P.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

Tania Kim Cardoso

Attorney at Hollenbeck & Cardoso, LLP

7755 Center Ave, Ste 1100

Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2022
  • HearingDescription: Record on appeal filed.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2022
  • DocketDescription: Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:; Notes: Notice dated Feb. 22, 2022: 8.122 no RT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order granting relief from 8.140(b) default filed.; Notes: Appellant's motion filed February 3, 2022 for relief from default pursuant to the Los Angeles Superior Court's notice of non-compliance filed on January 22, 2022 is hereby granted. Appellant shall serve and file the notice designating record on appeal and deposit any fees as required with the clerk of the Superior Court. In addition, appellant must serve a copy of the notice of appeal filed on September 14, 2021 on respondent and file a proof of service with the Superior Court. Appellant must comply with this order within 15 days of the date of this order.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: [ . . .] On the scant record available at this stage of the appeal, the court is unable to determine how notice to Jackson of the July 15, 2021 dismissal was served. Consequently, the determination of timeliness is deferred to the panel in the division that will hear the appeal with the benefit of a full record. Since no remittitur has issued in this case, the court denies as moot Jackson's motion to recall the remittitur without prejudice to her filing a motion to recall the remittitur in another case, if procedurally appropriate. The clerk's October 19, 2021 notice is discharged.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2022
  • DocketDescription: Motion for relief from default filed.; Notes: by appellant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated:; Notes: Notice of non-compliance received from LASC filed Jan 22, 2022

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • DocketDescription: Response filed:; Notes: Appellant's response to court's notice issued Oct 19, 2021.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to:; Notes: Appellant: A review of the civil case information statement filed on October 18, 2021 indicates that the appeal filed on September 14, 2021 may have been untimely filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a).) Appellant is requested to demonstrate in writing within 15 days of the date of this notice why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been untimely filed. Respondent may file a reply to the response within 10 days of the response file date. Any response shall have attached to it a proof of service. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.25(a)(1)-(2).) Appellant is advised that failure to comply with the requirements of this notice or to show good cause for non-compliance may result in the immediate dismissal of the appeal without further notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b); Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120, 122-123.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketDescription: Civil case information statement filed.; Notes: Plaintiff and Appellant: Nicole Y. Jackson Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketDescription: Default notice sent; no case information statement filed, or statement incomplete.; Notes: Appellant (September 14, 2021 by Nicole Y. Jackson ) is in default for failure to file a Case Information Statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.100(g).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • DocketBrief: Civil case information statement filed.; Party Attorney: Plaintiff and Appellant: Nicole Y. JacksonPro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order waiving filing fee.; Notes: Fee waiver granted on 4/27/2021 in case no. B311822

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Appealed filed on September 14, 2021 by Nicole Y. Jackson

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Los Angeles County Superior Court; County: Los Angeles; Trial Court Case Number: 19STCV09528; Trial Court Judge: Goorvitch, Stephen

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GRAND PROMENADE LP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LAW OFFICES OF HOLLENBECK & CARDOSO, LLP - TANIA CARDOSO