This case was last updated from California Courts Of Appeal on 11/28/2021 at 01:38:33 (UTC).

Technogym S.P.A v. Superior Court Los Angeles County et al.

Case Summary

On 10/12/2021 Technogym S P A filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court Los Angeles County. This case was filed in California Courts Of Appeal, Second Appellate District - Division 7 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Crowley, Daniel. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***5607

  • Filing Date:

    10/12/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Crowley, Daniel

 

Party Details

Petitioner

Technogym S.P.A

Respondents

Superior Court Los Angeles County

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Interested Parties

Hyung Koo

Central Fitness

LP

Central Fitness Partners, Inc.

Central Plaza LLC

Glide Fitness Products, Inc.

Jamison Properties Inc.

Jamison Properties LP

Jamison Realty Advisors LLC

Jamison Services Inc.

Technogym USA Corp

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Kara Ann Pape

Attorney at Tyson & Mendes

445 South Figueroa Street Suite 3100

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Alexandra Jade LaMonica

Attorney at Tyson & Mendes LLP

1055 W 7Th St Ste 2500

Los Angeles, CA 90017

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

Timothy Robert McCormick

Attorney at Law Offices of Brian J. Breiter, LLP

4929 Wilshire Blvd Ste 410

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Sonali Olson

Attorney at Olson Law Group, APC

21011 Warner Center Ln, Ste C

Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Jinny Ahn Cain

Attorney at OLSON LAW GROUP, APC

21011 Warner Center Lane, Suite C

Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Maks Shapiro

Attorney at OLSON LAW GROUP, APC

21011 Warner Center Ln Ste C

Woodland Hills, CA 91367-6509

Thomas E. Beach

Attorney at Beach Law Group, LLP

500 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 1400

Oxnard, CA 93036

Gregory Haviland Smith

Attorney at Booth, Mitchel & Strange LLP

701 S Parker St Ste 6500

Orange, CA 92868-4733

Ann Marilynne Asiano

Attorney at Clark Hill LLP

600 W Broadway Suite 500

San Diego, CA 92101-3357

Dean Albert Olson

Attorney at Clark Hill LLP

1055 W. 7Th Street Floor 24

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2503

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/15/2021
  • HearingDescription: Something is due; see note.; Notes: Petitioner shall inform this court whether respondent complied with alternative (a)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2021
  • DocketDescription: Alternative writ or OSC issued.; Notes: TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY: You are commanded, immediately upon receipt of this writ, either to: (a) vacate your order of September 29, 2021 in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 19STCV42761 and rule on plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery, or, (b) in the alternative, SHOW CAUSE before this court, in its courtroom at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California when the matter is ordered on calendar, why you have not done so and why a peremptory writ of mandate requiring you to do so should not issue. If the respondent intends to comply with alternative (a) above, before doing so it "must give the... parties notice and opportunity to be heard," as required by the Supreme Court in Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 1233, 1250-1251, fn. 10. Petitioner shall inform this court, on or before December 15, 2021, whether the respondent has complied with alternative (a), and shall serve and file any new order issued by the respondent. If the respondent complies with alternative (a) above, this court will promptly discharge the alternative writ and dismiss the petition as moot. In the event the respondent court fails to comply with alternative (a) above, a written return to this writ shall be served and filed on or before December 29, 2021. Petitioner may file a replay to the written return, within 20 days after the filing of the return. By order of this court.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2021
  • DocketDescription: Opposition filed.; Notes: One extension granted for a total of 21 days: 10/22/2021 Requested - extension of time. Requested for 11/19/2021 By 21 Day(s) 10/25/2021 Granted - extension of time. Due on 11/19/2021 By 21 Day(s) Plaintiff's opposition to petition for writ of mandate

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • DocketDescription: Granted - extension of time.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2021
  • DocketDescription: Requested - extension of time

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed on October 12, 2021. Plaintiff is requested to serve and file a preliminary opposition on or before October 29, 2021.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: Amended proof of service re: petition.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits filed in support of:; Notes: Volume 1 of 1.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketDescription: Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate with a STAY.

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CENTRL PLAZA LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where TECHNOGYM USA CORP is a litigant

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