This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 08/09/2022 at 16:03:15 (UTC).

Piazza v. Superior Court for the County of Solano

Case Summary

On 05/31/2022 Piazza filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court for the County of Solano. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Davis, Terrye. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***5295

  • Filing Date:

    05/31/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Davis, Terrye

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Amanda Piazza

Respondent

Superior Court for the County of Solano

Interested Party

The People

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Camilla Amato

Attorney at Solano County Public Defender's Office

675 Texas Street Suite 3500

Fairfield, CA 94533

Elena Marie D'Agustino

Attorney at Office of Solano County Public Defender

675 Texas Street, Suite 3500

Fairfield, CA 94533

Interested Party Attorney

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue - Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/15/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT: The petition for writ of mandate is denied. (Dews v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 660, 664 [review of appellate division ruling pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., 904.3 "is limited to the record of the proceedings below, and asks whether the lower court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction."].) Petitioner fails to establish that her interest in the outcome of the proceedings is substantial or that her legal rights are injuriously affected by the action she challenges. (See Braude v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 83, 87; accord, Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 205 ["If the writ sought would enforce only a technical, abstract or moot right, the interest is not substantial for purposes of the beneficial interest requirement."].) Petitioner fails to explain why she would necessarily have prevailed at the hearing on the motion to suppress if the challenged continuance had been denied and the hearing held as scheduled. She also fails to explain her contention that a favorable ruling on the motion to suppress would inevitably have resulted in the dismissal of the entire action against her. Before: Humes, J., Banke, J., and Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT: The petition for writ of mandate is denied. (Dews v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 660, 664 [review of appellate division ruling pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., 904.3 "is limited to the record of the proceedings below, and asks whether the lower court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction."].) Petitioner fails to establish that her interest in the outcome of the proceedings is substantial or that her legal rights are injuriously affected by the action she challenges. (See Braude v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 83, 87; accord, Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 205 ["If the writ sought would enforce only a technical, abstract or moot right, the interest is not substantial for purposes of the beneficial interest requirement."].) Petitioner fails to explain why she would necessarily have prevailed at the hearing on the motion to suppress if the challenged continuance had been denied and the hearing held as scheduled. She also fails to explain her contention that a favorable ruling on the motion to suppress would inevitably have resulted in the dismissal of the entire action against her. Before: Humes, J., Banke, J., and Wiss, J. (Judge of the San Francisco County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Petition for Writ of Mandate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: Solano County Superior Court - Main; County: Solano; Trial Court Case Number: FCR355011; Trial Court Judge: Davis, Terrye

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


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

Latest cases where People is a litigant