This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 12/18/2021 at 14:38:42 (UTC).

Perry v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Case Summary

On 07/01/2021 Perry filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court of Los Angeles County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District - Division 8 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Taylor, Tricia. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***3358

  • Filing Date:

    07/01/2021

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Taylor, Tricia

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Moshe (Michael) A. Perry

West Hills, CA 91307

Respondents

Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Appellate Division Los Angeles Superior Court

Interested Party

NP Parc Chateaux, LLC., a subsidiary of Alliance Residential & Commercial, Inc. (ALLRESCO)

444 Wes Ocean Blvd., Ste. 705

Long Beach, CA 90802

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Respondent Attorneys

Frederick Bennett

Attorney at Superior Court of Los Angeles County

111 North Hill Street, Room 546

Los Angeles, CA 90012

The Honorable Patti Jo McKay

Attorney at Appellate Division Los Angeles Superior Court

111 N. Hill Street, 6Th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Interested Party 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

  • 07/02/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: We have read and considered defendant's petition, filed on July 1, 2021, in which he seeks to "Annul the May 19, 2021 Opinion of the Appellate Division." Petitioner seeks to transfer the case to this court, and he also seeks relief by writ of mandate, certiorari and prohibition. Petitioner further challenges by mandate the Appellate Division's order of June 1, 2021 denying his application to certify the case for transfer. We have also read and considered defendant's application to combine the petitions, filed on the same date. The application to combine the petitions is granted. As we have repeatedly indicated in our prior orders in response to defendant's petitions, we have concluded, decided and once again rule that this case does not satisfy the requirements for transfer under Rule 8.1002, and therefore this court will not order transfer. (See Case Nos. B312708, B312746, B313036 & B313293.) Furthermore, we conclude there is no basis for relief by certiorari, mandate or prohibition, and we deny any such relief. Finally, we conclude the Appellate Division did not err in denying defendant's motion for certification for transfer. Filing repetitive petitions is inappropriate and this court will refuse to consider repetitive applications for relief that have previously been denied. (See Hagan v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 767, 770-771.) The combined petition is denied.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate/Prohibition/Certiorari/Stay

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order waiving filing fee.; Notes: Prior waiver granted in B313293.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketDescription: Received:; Notes: Petition for writ of mandate and prohibition and for extraordinary relief and a stay consequenced to annul the May 19, 2021 opinion of the appellate division of the superior court.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketDescription: Application filed to:; Notes: Application to combine a petition for writ of mandate; an extraordinary writ; and prohibition consequenced to annul the May 19, 2021 opinion of the appellate division of the superior court and a stay pursuant to CRC, Rule 8.10006.

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NP Parc Chateaux, LLC is a litigant

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

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