We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

David Laird Vs Harry Dixon Et Al

Case Last Refreshed: 3 years ago

Laird David, filed a(n) Breach of Contract - Commercial case represented by Ball Law Firm The, Geragos Mark, Trial Law Offices Of Bradley I. Kramer, against Blast Fitness, Craffey Michael J., Dixon Harry, Eskendarian Edward, Mccann Michelle, (total of 8) See All represented by P.C. Jackson Lewis, in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts Stanley Mosk Courthouse with Rita Miller presiding.

Case Details for Laird David v. Blast Fitness , et al.

Time To Management

125 days

Filing Date

May 19, 2015

Category

Contract/Warranty Breach - Seller Plaintiff (No Fraud/Negligence) (General Jurisdiction)

Time To Trial

392 days

Last Refreshed

February 19, 2021

Practice Area

Commercial

Filing Location

Los Angeles County, CA

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Filing Court House

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

Case Outcome Type

Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other)

Case Cycle Time

402 days

Parties for Laird David v. Blast Fitness , et al.

Plaintiffs

Laird David

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Ball Law Firm The

Geragos Mark

Trial Law Offices Of Bradley I. Kramer

Defendants

Blast Fitness

Craffey Michael J.

Dixon Harry

Eskendarian Edward

Mccann Michelle

Moran Tom

Moses James

Vito Mark

Attorneys for Defendants

P.C. Jackson Lewis

Case Documents for Laird David v. Blast Fitness , et al.

Complaint

Date: 2015-05-19T00:00:00

OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous)

Date: 2015-05-26T00:00:00

Notice of Removal to Federal Court

Date: 2015-07-10T00:00:00

Notice of Removal to Federal Court

Date: 2015-06-30T00:00:00

Substitution of Attorney

Date: 2015-08-20T00:00:00

Answer

Date: 2015-06-24T00:00:00

Case Management Statement

Date: 2015-09-09T00:00:00

Amendment to Complaint

Date: 2015-09-23T00:00:00

Case Management Order

Date: 2015-09-21T00:00:00

Case Management Statement

Date: 2015-09-16T00:00:00

Amendment to Complaint

Date: 2015-09-23T00:00:00

Declaration

Date: 2016-03-22T00:00:00

Ex-Parte Application

Date: 2015-10-22T00:00:00

Ex-Parte Application

Date: 2016-03-18T00:00:00

Opposition Document

Date: 2016-03-18T00:00:00

Notice

Date: 2016-02-19T00:00:00

Opposition Document

Date: 2016-03-28T00:00:00

Motion for an Order

Date: 2016-03-22T00:00:00

Motion in Limine

Date: 2016-06-07T00:00:00

Receipt

Date: 2016-03-30T00:00:00

Ex-Parte Application

Date: 2016-03-30T00:00:00

Request for Judicial Notice

Date: 2016-03-29T00:00:00

Ex-Parte Application

Date: 2016-03-28T00:00:00

Opposition Document

Date: 2016-05-04T00:00:00

Ex-Parte Application

Date: 2016-05-04T00:00:00

Declaration

Date: 2016-03-29T00:00:00

Opposition Document

Date: 2016-05-27T00:00:00

Opposition Document

Date: 2016-03-30T00:00:00

Motion for an Order

Date: 2016-03-29T00:00:00

Ex-Parte Application

Date: 2016-05-27T00:00:00

Notice

Date: 2016-06-14T00:00:00

Opposition Document

Date: 2016-06-14T00:00:00

Notice of Ruling

Date: 2016-03-29T00:00:00

Order

Date: 2016-03-30T00:00:00

Reply/Response

Date: June 21, 2016

Notice of Lodging

Date: June 22, 2016

Request for Dismissal

Date: June 24, 2016

Case Events for Laird David v. Blast Fitness , et al.

Type Description
Docket Event in Department 16
Hearing on Motion for Order (Motion for an Order; Order of Dismissal) -
Docket Event in Department 16
Hearing on Motion for Order (Motion for an Order; Order of Dismissal) -
Docket Event in Department 16
Jury Trial (Jury Trial; Order of Dismissal) -
Docket Event REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
Docket Event Request for Dismissal
Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
Docket Event in Department 13
Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)
Docket Event DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF LODGING TRANSCRIPT FOR USE AT TRIAL
Docket Event Notice of Lodging
Filed by Defendant/Respondent
Docket Event Reply/Response
Filed by Defendant/Respondent
Docket Event DEFENDANT HAROLD DIXON'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF DAVID LAIRD'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO.2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S NET WORTH AND FINANCIAL CONDITION
See all events