Thank you
Someone from our team will get in touch with you shortly
Utility Billing in California
What Are the Laws on Utility Billing?
“A municipal corporation may establish, purchase, and operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with light, water, power, heat, transportation, or means of communication. It may furnish those services outside its boundaries, except within another municipal corporation which furnishes the same service and does not consent.” (Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 9(a); see also Kennedy v. City of Ukiah (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 545.) Municipal corporations “also have the power to fix the rates to be charged for the sale of the water. [Citations.] The only requirement is that such rates be reasonable.” (Kennedy v. City of Ukiah (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 545, 552.)
Alternatively, “[p]ersons or corporations may establish and operate works for supplying those services upon conditions and under regulations that the city may prescribe under its organic law.” (Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 9(b).) “Private corporations and persons that own, operate, control, or manage a line, plant, or system for the transportation of people or property, the transmission of telephone and telegraph messages, or the production, generation, transmission, or furnishing of heat, light, water, power, storage, or wharfage directly or indirectly to or for the public, and common carriers, are public utilities subject to control by the Legislature. The Legislature may prescribe that additional classes of private corporations or other persons are public utilities.” (Cal. Const., Art. XII, § 3.)
Legal Standard
The Public Utilities Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and regulate public utilities. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 701-853, 1001, 1002, 2101.) It “may fix rates, establish rules, examine records, issue subpenas, administer oaths, take testimony, punish for contempt, and prescribe a uniform system of accounts for all public utilities subject to its jurisdiction.” (Cal. Const., Art. XII, § 6; County of Inyo v. Public Utilities Com. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 154, 166-167.)
The Public Utilities Commission “must fix rates that will provide a reasonable return on the utility's investment, and in doing so it has wide discretion to make rate classifications that reflect a broad and varied range of economic considerations.” (Wood v. Public Utilities Commission (1971) 4 Cal.3d 288, 294-295.) In doing so, “no public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service facilities, or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 453.)
“All charges demanded or received by any public utility... for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or any service rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 451; see also Southern California Edison Co. v. Peevey (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 781, 792.)
“Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge, or modifying or amending an existing fee or service charge, adopted by a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion.” (Gov. Code, §66022(a).) “If an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge, and the automatic adjustment results in an increase in the amount of a fee or service charge, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the increase.” (Gov. Code, § 66022(a).) The court has reasoned that the Legislature enacted the relatively short 120-day limitations period to give local agencies certainty with respect to the enforceability of their fee resolutions and ordinances and to avoid putting an agency in the position of reimbursing funds that “have long since been expended.” (San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School District (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1083, 1086.)
Section 66022 of the Government Code is part of the Mitigation Fee Act, which places various limits on the fees and charges that local agencies (including utility districts) can impose on persons or property holders. (Gov. Code, § 66022; Gov. Code, § 66025.) The Mitigation Fee Act places limits on “fees for water connections or sewer connections, or... capacity charges.” (Gov. Code, § 66013(a).)
Charges as Taxes
Whether a charge constitutes a “tax” for purposes of the Constitution “is a question of law for the appellate courts to decide on independent review of the facts.” (Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874.) In determining whether a charge is a tax, courts “are not bound by what the parties may have called the liability” (Bank of America v. State Bd. of Equal. (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 780, 801), and are “not to be guided by labels” (Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board (1977) 19 Cal.3d 467, 475) or “bare legislative assertion” (Flynn v. San Francisco (1941) 18 Cal.2d 210, 215). Instead, their “task is to determine the[] true nature” of the charge (Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, at p. 475), based on “its incidents” and “the natural and legal effect of the language employed in” the enactment (Ainsworth v. Bryant (1949) 34 Cal. 2d 465, 473).
Nonpayment of Utility Bill
“Where the management provides both master-meter and submeter service of utilities to a homeowner, for each billing period the cost of the charges for the period shall be separately stated along with the opening and closing readings for his or her meter. The management shall post, in a conspicuous place, the specific current residential utility rate schedule as published by the serving utility or the Internet Web site address of the specific current residential utility rate schedule.” (Civ. Code, § 798.40(a).)
“If all or part of the bill is not paid, the local agency may discontinue any and all service for which the bill is rendered.” (Gov. Code, § 54346.) “Remedies for collecting and enforcing rates and charges... are cumulative and may be pursued alternately, or any thereof may be used consecutively when the legislative body so determines.” (Gov. Code, § 54357.) However, California law does not permit the termination of utility service to a customer without good cause (Schultz v. Town of Lakeport (1936) 5 Cal.2d 377, 381-382.) Specific due process requirements have been prescribed prior to termination of service by a public utility. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 779, 780.)
Utility Refunds
A public utility is prohibited from refunding “directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any device” the scheduled charges for its services.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 532.). In addition, a public utility “cannot by contract, conduct, estoppel, waiver, directly or indirectly increase or decrease the rate as published in the tariff." (Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., 187 Cal.App.2d 257, 264.) Scheduled rates must be inflexibly enforced in order to maintain equality for all customers and to prevent collusion which otherwise might be easily and effectively disguised. (R.E. Tharp, Inc. v. Miller Hay Co., 261 Cal.App.2d 81 [67 Cal. Rptr. 854]; People ex rel. Public Util. Com. v. Ryerson, 241 Cal.App.2d 115, 120-121 [50 Cal. Rptr. 246].) Therefore, as a general rule, utility customers cannot recover damages which are tantamount to a preferential rate reduction even though the utility may have intentionally misquoted the applicable rate. (Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, p. 265.)
Upon discovery of the error, the utility may initiate an action against the customer to recover the full legal charges for the service, as filed and published in rate schedules. (Gardner v. Basich Bros. Construction Co., 44 Cal.2d 191 [281 P.2d 521]; R.E. Tharp, Inc. v. Miller Hay Co., supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 81.) In granting recovery to the utility, the courts usually rely on the fact that the rates have been filed and published and have thereby become part of the contract between the utility and the customer. (Gardner v. Basich Bros. Construction Co., supra, p. 193; Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, 187 Cal. App. 2d 257, 265.) Under these circumstances the customer is charged with knowledge of the contents of the published rate schedules and, therefore, may not justifiably rely on misrepresentations regarding rates for utility service. (Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, p. 265.)
“Whenever the commission orders rate refunds to be distributed, the commission shall require public utilities to pay refunds to all current utility customers, and, when practicable, to prior customers, on an equitable pro rata basis without regard as to whether or not the customer is classifiable as a residential or commercial tenant, landlord, homeowner, business, industrial, educational, governmental, nonprofit, agricultural, or any other type of entity.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 453.5.)
Where the section applies, “'refunds' which are ordered 'distributed' by the commission must be allocated according to the statutory formula; present customers (except for small residential users) must be compensated on the basis of their prior usage to which the refund corresponds, and, where practical, prior customers must also participate to the extent of the overcharges which they previously paid.” (Cal. Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 842.) The court reasoned that refunds of rebates are ordered by the commission “to be 'distributed' whenever it directs their final disposition, thereby dividing and apportioning them.” (Id. at 848.) The “general feasibility of reimbursing many [present and prior] customers in strict accordance with their actual overpayments is demonstrated by past refund plans.” (Id. at p. 848-849.)
Documents for Utility Billing in California
4 pages
1 STEPHEN ALLEN JAMIESON (SBN 115805) 2 RYAN M. KROLL (SBN 235204) SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON 3 426 Culver Boulevard Playa Del Rey, CA 90293 4 (310) 822-9848 5 (310) 822-3512 - fax rkroll@ssjlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners Scott Simpson, Dvonne Pitruzzello, and 7 Kevin Dawson, on behalf of themselves 8 and all others similarly situated 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 F…
Case Name
SIMPSON vs CITY OF RIVERSIDE
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Feb 02, 2020
Case Status
Stayed
113 pages
716734,01 oe ID 10 in 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 2B 24 25 26 27 28 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP iKekerokvecomn #49092 ELECTRONICALLY DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424 FILED dpurcell@kvn.com . Superior Court of California, DAN JACKSON - #216091 …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 21, 2010
County
San Francisco County, CA
Filed Date
Jan 23, 2013
Court Category
WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
264 pages
MOC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-16-2013 8:10 am Case Number: CPF-10-510830 Filing Date: Apr-17-2012 2:52 Filed by: ANNIE PASCUAL Juke Box: 001 Image: 04016363 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/ PROHIBITION/ CERTIFICATION SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY VS. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al 001004016363 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. 635378.02 0 Om ND HW BF WN YPN NY…
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 21, 2010
County
San Francisco County, CA
Filed Date
Apr 17, 2012
Court Category
WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
3 pages
MONT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-29-2011 8:27 am Case Number: CPF-10-510830 Filing Date: Dec-20-2011 8:27 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03434697 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY VS. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN 001003434697 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. ve (When required) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL = SINCE 1888 915 …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 21, 2010
County
San Francisco County, CA
Filed Date
Dec 20, 2011
Court Category
WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN
475 pages
F:\3591\COMPLAINT\Complaint - Final.frm 1 METZGER LAW GROUP, APLC RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ., SBN 116020 2 rmetzger@toxictorts.com SCOTT P. BRUST, ESQ., SBN 215951 3 sbrust@toxictorts.com 555 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 800 4 LONG BEACH, CA 90802 Phone (562) 437-4499; Fax (562) 436-1561 5 WATERS KRAUS PAUL & SIEGEL 6 KEVIN M. LOEW, ESQ., SBN 238080 kloew@waterskraus.com M. CAMILLE HUNT, …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 05, 2026
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 05, 2026
Court Category
Personal Injury - Silicosis
167 pages
Conor A. Meyers (SBN 157601) 1 Lee W. Clark (SBN 175238) conor.meyers@clarkmeyers.com 2 lee.clark@clarkmeyers.com CLARK MEYERS PC 3 1401 Willow Pass Road, Suite 840 Concord, California 94520 4 Telephone: (855) 208-2049 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff RS WOODBRIDGE, a joint venture, 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES UNLIMITED CIVIL 10 RS WOODBRIDGE, a joint venture …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 04, 2026
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
85 pages
1 ZACHARY D. LUDENS, SBN: 360153 SHAW LEWENZ 2 811 W 7th St Los Angeles, CA 90017 3 Telephone: 954.361.3633 Fax: 954.989.7781 4 Email: zludens@shawlewenz.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Case No.: __________________ 9 limited liability company, 10 …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 04, 2026
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
Court Category
Commercial - Breach of Contract
48 pages
1 BRENNAN S. KAHN, ESQ. (SBN 259548) MICHAEL S. WALKER, ESQ. (SBN 330373) 2 ASHLEY M. HUSTON, ESQ. (SBN 365829) EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 3 1001 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017 4 Telephone: (213) 382-2222; Facsimile: (213) 382-2230 Email: bkahn@ejlglaw.com; mwalker@ejlglaw.com; ahuston@ejlglaw.com 5 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Martha Ericka Silva Diaz 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 04, 2026
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
Court Category
Employment - Discrimination and Retaliation
27 pages
MANN ROGAL APC 1 Matthew L. Mann, Esq. (SBN: 276220) Email: mmann@mannrogal.com 2 Justin R. Rogal, Esq. (SBN: 273352) Email: jrogal@mannrogal.com 3 Katherine T. Ball, Esq. (SBN 273373) …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 04, 2026
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
55 pages
1 BUCHALTER LLP JOSHUA J. MOON (SBN: 334873) 2 jjmoon@buchalter.com 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.945.5170 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 GALT FUEL ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California limited liability company 6 7 …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 04, 2026
County
Sacramento County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
Court Category
Employment - Class Action
482 pages
F:\3540\COMPLAINT\Complaint - Final.frm 1 METZGER LAW GROUP, APLC RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ., SBN 116020 2 rmetzger@toxictorts.com SCOTT P. BRUST, ESQ., SBN 215951 3 sbrust@toxictorts.com 555 E. OCEAN BLVD., SUITE 800 4 LONG BEACH, CA 90802 Phone (562) 437-4499; Fax (562) 436-1561 5 WATERS KRAUS PAUL & SIEGEL 6 KEVIN M. LOEW, ESQ., SBN 238080 kloew@waterskraus.com M. CAMILLE HUNT, …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 04, 2026
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
55 pages
1 BUCHALTER LLP JOSHUA J. MOON (SBN: 334873) 2 jjmoon@buchalter.com 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 3 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.945.5170 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 GALT FUEL ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California limited liability company 6 7 …
County
Sacramento County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
Court Category
Tort Law - Personal Injury
44 pages
1 D.LAW, INC. Alvin B. Lindsay (SBN 220236) 2 a.lindsay@d.law Antonia Bliznets (SBN 344511) 3 a.bliznets@d.law Nicholas Demirjian (SBN 368051) 4 n.demirjian@d.law 250 N Madison Avenue, 2nd Floor 5 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 6 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL F. BARCA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 …
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 04, 2026
County
Los Angeles County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 04, 2026
27 pages
1 RYAN TACK-HOOPER (WA SBN 56423) pro hac vice forthcoming 2 KYLE D. MCLEAN (SBN 330580) ZACHARY M. CROSNER (SBN 272295) 3 CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 4 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (310) 496-5818 5 Fax: (310) 510-6429 ryan@crosnerlegal.com 6 kyle@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNT…
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 02, 2026
County
Alameda County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 02, 2026
Court Category
Privacy - Unauthorized Access to ALPR Information
146 pages
1 Kevin T. Cauley (SBN 105082) kevin@sscelaw.com 2 Scott J. Kerr (SBN 351181) scott@sscelaw.com 3 SCHWARTZ SEMERDJIAN CAULEY SCHENA & BUSH LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 810 4 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone No. (619) 236-8821 5 Facsimile No. (619) 236-8827 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALI COASTAL FLOORING INC. dba COASTAL FLOORING 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – CENTR…
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 02, 2026
County
San Diego County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 02, 2026
Court Category
Commercial - Breach of Contract
65 pages
Cox, CASTLE & 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NICHOLSON LLP Arrorstys at Law SANFRANCISCO Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP Andrew B. Sabey (Bar No. 160416) Ed Dygert (Bar No. 56935) Brady Witbeck (Bar No. 324289) 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 Telephone: (415) 262-5100 Facsimile: (415) 262-5199 Email: asabey@coxcastle.com; edygert@coxcastle.com; bwitbeck@coxcastle.com Attorneys for Defendant 505 Lincoln Avenue Napa, LLC SUPER…
180 pages
SUMMunSEVICTION (CITACION JUDICIAL-DESALOJO) UNLAWFUL DETAINER / FORCIBLE DETAINER / FORCIBLE ENTRY (RETENCION ILICITA DE UN INMUEBLE / RETENCION FORZOSA / ENTRADA FORZOSA) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): Cloud Fortress Coworking LLC, Jeffrey Shaw and DOES 1 to 20 Inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Transbay Joint Powers Authority SUM-130 FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE) NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide a…
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 02, 2026
County
San Francisco County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 02, 2026
Court Category
UNLAWFUL DETAINER - RESIDENTIAL
246 pages
1 Meagen E. Leary (SBN: 233103) Marcus O. Colabianchi (SBN: 208698) 2 Geoffrey A. Heaton (SBN: 206990) DUANE MORRIS LLP 3 One Market Plaza Spear Street Tower, Suite 2200 4 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957-3000 5 Facsimile: (415) 957-3001 Email: meleary@duanemorris.com 6 mcolabianchi@duanemorris.com gheaton@duanemorris.com 7 Rubina Arabatlian (SBN: 358647) 8 DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, Sui…
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 02, 2026
County
Alameda County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 02, 2026
Court Category
Real Estate - Foreclosure
352 pages
PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C. 1 Michelle Yang, Esq. (SBN: 325467) myang@plsfirm.com 2 …
45 pages
1 DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) THE BARRY LAW FIRM 2 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270 Los Angeles, CA 90064 3 Telephone: 310.684.5859 Facsimile: 310.862.4539 4 Email: eservicefca@mylemonrights.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CHRISTINA MACHAMER 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA- HISTORIC COURTHOUSE 10 CHRISTINA MACHAMER, an individual, Case No. 11…
County
Napa County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 02, 2026
Court Category
Commercial - Breach of Contract
149 pages
SNELL & WILMER Eric S. Pezold, Bar No. 255657 epezold@swlaw.com Andrew B. Still, Bar No. 312444 astill@swlaw.com Rachel A. McMains, Bar No. 352954 rmcmains@swlaw.com SNELL & WILMER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626-7689 Telephone: 714.427.7000 Facsimile: 714.427.7799 Attorneys for Plaintiff Genesis Capital, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GENESIS CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, Vv. AL…
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 01, 2026
County
San Diego County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 01, 2026
Court Category
Real Estate - Foreclosure
80 pages
Kevin P. Montee, Esq., State Bar No. 223822 MONTEE LAW FIRM, APC 1250-I Newell Ave., Suite 149 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: __ 925/979-5579 FacsiMaRERIOR S/O3SRE43F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA kmontee@monteefirm.com IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA Attorneys for Plaintiff SSCOP DE LLC UNLIMITED JURISDICTION SSCOP DE LLC, No. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF LEASE AND DAMAGES vs. (Civil Code $1951.2) …
County
Sonoma County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 01, 2026
40 pages
un BR Ww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Antony Nash (SBN 217867) anash@mintz.com Paige E. Adaskaveg (SBN 330551) peadaskaveg@mintz.com MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 432-6000 Facsimile: (415) 432-6001 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants EDWARD E. GUILLET and DANA M. ANDRADE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA EDWARD E. GUILLET and DANA M…
Case Name
GUILLET vs LEDSON
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
May 21, 2024
Case Status
Adjudicated
29 pages
THOMAS F. FEERICK JR., SBN 311191 EMAIL: thomas@feericklawrealty.com 1 FEERICK LAW & REALTY, INC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 5151 Shoreham Place, Suite 185 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9212 2 3 TELEPHONE: (858) 337-9564 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Janice Cornell and Jiya Gannone 5 6 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COU…
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Oct 01, 2026
County
San Diego County, CA
Filed Date
Oct 01, 2026
Court Category
Real Estate - Breach of Contract
102 pages
10 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOSHUA L. SEIFERT PLLC Joshua L. Seifert (SBN 296399) jseifert@seifertpllc.com 251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 800 Pasadena, California 91101 Tel: 646.470.2647 Attorney for Defendants Master Bango and Ronald Ferraro SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA RAVIOLI LLC, SPAGHETTI LLC, TORTELLINI LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MASTER BANGO, a California Corporation; RONALD FERRARO, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusi…
Case Name
Ravioli LLC vs Master Bango
Case #
(Subscribe to View)
Case Filed
Dec 01, 2021
Case Status
Active
