This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 07/03/2022 at 00:11:05 (UTC).

One Technologies, LLC v. Franchise Tax Board of the State of California

Case Summary

On 02/09/2022 One Technologies, LLC filed an Other lawsuit against Franchise Tax Board of the State of California. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Beaudet, Teresa. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***8787

  • Filing Date:

    02/09/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Beaudet, Teresa

 

Party Details

Appellant and Plaintiff

One Technologies, LLC

Defendant and Respondent

Franchise Tax Board of the State of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Appellant and Plaintiff Attorneys

Donald Eugene Chomiak

Attorney at DAKESSIAN LAW, LTD.

445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2210

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Mardiros Hagop Dakessian

Attorney at Dakessian Law, LTD.

445 S. Figueroa St. Suite 2210

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

Anna Barsegyan

Attorney at Office of the Attorney General

300 S. Spring St. Suite 1702

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/09/2022
  • HearingDescription: Record on appeal filed.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2022
  • DocketDescription: Motion filed.; Notes: Appellant's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Designation of Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: The court has read and considered appellant One Technologies, LLC's response to the clerk's notice sent on March 25, 2022. The March 25, 2022 notice is discharged. The final determination of the appealability of the appealed judgment is deferred to the panel in the division that will hear the appeal.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2022
  • DocketDescription: Notice per rule 8.124 - with reporter's transcript.; Notes: Notice dated Feb. 17, 2022

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2022
  • DocketDescription: Response filed:; Notes: Appellant's response to this court's notice sent March 25, 2022

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2022
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to:; Notes: The civil case information statement for the above-entitled appeal was received and filed on March 8, 2022. However, it is insufficient, as you did not attach a written, signed order or judgment of dismissal. (Code Civ. Proc. 581d.) Ordinarily, no appeal lies from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend; it lies instead in the signed order or judgment of dismissal entered after the order sustaining the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. 904.1; Hill v. City of Long Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1684, 1695; Mounger v. Gates (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1248, 1254.) Appellant shall, within 15 days of the date of this notice, provide the court with a conformed copy of the signed order or judgment of dismissal and proof of service showing that opposing parties have been served with a copy of the order or judgment. Failure to do so may result in the appeal being dismissed as taken from a non-appealable order. (Sherman V. Standard Mines Co. (1913) 166 Cal. 524, 525.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2022
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to:; Notes: Pro Hac Vice Attorneys This Court has received appellant's notice of appeal. The case has been assigned the above referenced number. Any counsel who are not licensed to practice in the State of California and intend to appear in or file any documents with this Court must first file an application to appear pro hac vice pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c)(2). This application must be made to this Court regardless of any previous order granting pro hac vice appearance filed in the trial court. A new application to appear as counsel pro hac vice made to this Court must conform to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(e), payment of the required fee is to be made to California State Bar and a statement regarding payment must be indicated in the application to this Court.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2022
  • DocketDescription: Civil case information statement filed.; Notes: Plaintiff and Appellant: One Technologies, LLC Attorney: Donald Eugene Chomiak Attorney: Mardiros Hagop Dakessian

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2022
  • DocketBrief: Civil case information statement filed.; Party Attorney: Plaintiff and Appellant: One Technologies, LLCAttorney: Donald Eugene Chomiak Attorney: Mardiros Hagop Dakessian

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: check# 399286 for $775.00 (LA Depositions, Inc)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2022
  • DocketDescription: Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).; Notes: No fee received

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2022
  • DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Appeal filed on February 9, 2022 by One Technologies, LLC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Los Angeles County Superior Court; County: Los Angeles; Trial Court Case Number: 21STCV21844; Trial Court Judge: Beaudet, Teresa

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ONE TECHNOLOGIES LLC D/B/A FREESCORE360.COM A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where FRANCHISE TAX BOARD is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BARSEGYAN, ANNA