Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from California Courts Of Appeal on 05/17/2021 at 15:55:31 (UTC).

Lajas et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County et al.

Case Summary

On 01/08/2021 Lajas filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court of Los Angeles County. This case was filed in California Courts Of Appeal, Second Appellate District - Division 5 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Orozco, Yolanda. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***9863

  • Filing Date:

    01/08/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    California Courts Of Appeal

  • Courthouse:

    Second Appellate District - Division 5

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Orozco, Yolanda

 

Party Details

Petitioners

Joseph A. Kaufman

Sonia Lajas

Shawna M. Melton

Respondents

Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Hon. Yolanda Orozco

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Interested Party

Hyundai Motor America

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Margaret M. Grignon

Attorney at Grignon Law Firm LLP

6621 E. Pacific Coast Hwy. Ste 200

Long Beach, CA 90803-4239

Zareh A. Jaltorossian

150 East Colorado Boulevard, Ste 206

Pasadena, CA 91105

Respondent Attorney

Frederick Bennett

Attorney at Superior Court of Los Angeles County

111 North Hill Street, Room 546

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Interested Party Attorneys

Kainoa Kane Aliviado

Attorney at Theta Law Firm, LLP

15901 Hawthorne Blvd. Ste 270

Lawndale, CA 90260

Jennifer Tolkan Persky

Attorney at Bowman and Brooke LLP

970 W 190Th St Ste 700

Torrance, CA 90502-1091

Michael Ayzen

Attorney at Theta Law Firm, LLP

15342 Hawthorne Blvd Ste 203

Lawndale, CA 90260

Soheyl Tahsildoost

Attorney at Theta Law Firm, LLP

15901 Hawthorne Blvd Ste 270

Lawndale, CA 90260

Brian Takahashi

Attorney at Bowman & Brooke LLP

970 West 190Th Street Suite 700

Torrance, CA 90502

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/22/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate and motion to file under seal filed January 13, 2021, the motion to deem the petition for writ of mandate filed as of January 8, 2021, filed January 15, 2021, the preliminary opposition filed February 5, 2021, and the reply filed February 16, 2021. The motion to file under seal is granted. The motion to deem the petition for writ of mandate filed as of January 8, 2021 is granted. The petition is denied. Petitioners fail to demonstrate the order disqualifying counsel was an abuse of discretion. To the extent petitioners challenge the respondent court's ruling excluding evidence, relief is denied. (Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 634 ["a ruling excluding evidence is not ordinarily subject to review by writ"].) Further, to the extent petitioners challenge the respondent court's denial of their motion to compel deposition, the challenge is denied as untimely. (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 695, 701.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2021
  • DocketDescription: Reply filed to:; Notes: Reply in support of petition for writ of mandate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2021
  • DocketDescription: Opposition - opposition to petition; Notes: Real Parties in Interest Hyundai Motor America's preliminary opposition to petition for writ of mandateOne extension granted for a total of 11 days: 01/15/2021 Granted - extension of time. Due on 02/05/2021 By 11 Day(s)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2021
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: RPI's opposition to the petition returned unfiled for non-compliance with CRC 8.74(a)(3).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketDescription: Granted - extension of time.; Notes: [THE COURT: Parties are advised that the time requested was greater than what the court ordered. Real Party in Interest is invited to include in its preliminary opposition any argument based on petitioner's Motion to Deem Petition for Writ of Mandate filed as of January 8, 2021.]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketDescription: Application filed to:; Notes: Real Parties in Interest application for extension of time to file preliminary opposition to petition for writ of mandate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketDescription: Association of attorneys filed for:; Notes: Real Parties in Interest notice of association of counsel; request for change of service list

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: Amended proof of service for motion to deem petition for writ of mandate filed as of January 8, 2021, etc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2021
  • DocketDescription: Motion filed.; Notes: Motion to deem petition for writ of mandate filed as of January 8, 2020; declaration of Zareh A. Jaltorossian; [Proposed] order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Volumes 8 of 8.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate. (Public-redacts material from sealed record pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.46).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketDescription: Motion filed.; Notes: Application to file under seal an unredacted version of petition for writ of mandate; declaration of Zareh A. Jaltorossian; (proposed) order[ Deemed filed January 8, 2021, per the order issued February 22, 2021. ]

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Superior Court of Los Angeles County is a litigant

Latest cases where HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Frederick Bennett