Search for: "Los Angeles v. Superior Court" Results 601 - 620 of 1,367
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2020, 2:56 pm by Unknown
Burlison Law Group, APC et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, case # BP140980. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 2:56 pm by Unknown
Burlison Law Group, APC et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, case # BP140980. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 5:35 pm
Respondent has filed an RFO to transfer the pending proceedings to Chatsworth Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court on the grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 397(c) and (e), and upon Section 397.5. 1. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 8:45 am by Joel R. Brandes
The Ninth Circuit had no difficulty identifying the date of wrongful detention as “the moment ... when [the mother] asked the Los Angeles County Superior Court to grant her custody of [the children]. [read post]
22 May 2012, 3:57 pm by Laura Brookover
  As a result, this putative class action was remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court and will go forward separate from the proceedings in the Northern District of California. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 9:23 am
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B217290, California Court Appeals, 2nd Appellate District (Los Angeles). [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 9:28 am by Abbott & Kindermann
(B245131; 224 Cal.App.4th 1105; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS131347.) [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:19 pm by Kim Zetter
Under California law, the public has a right to see the documents that led San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Clifford V. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 3:30 am
  Thus, the Court concluded, the action fell within the “local controversy” exception to CAFA and should be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 4:22 pm by Ginzburg & Bronshteyn, APC
Cowan, Supervising Judge of the Probate and Mental Health Departments of Los Angeles Superior Court, Hon. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 4:30 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Glenn Koenig /Los Angeles Times, file) An interesting decision today from the California Supreme Court (ACLU of So. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 8:36 am by Nassiri Law
  Plaintiff says  in her employment lawsuit, filed in the the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the true reason she was fired was because she complained about the hostile work environment she endured (her direct supervisor referred to her as “it”), as well as her drawing attention to the company’s illegal business practices. [read post]
 The Los Angeles Superior Court interpreted “provide” to mean “make available,” and, on that basis, concluded that AutoZoners satisfied its requirement to “provide” seating under the Wage Order. [read post]