Motion to Relate or Reassign in GOLDEN GATEWAY CENTER A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL| Trellis.Law

On December 13, 2019 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Golden Gateway Center A California Limited, and California State Teachers' Retirement System, Does 1 To 100, for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS (TO ADD CALSTRS TO A JUDGMENT AS THE ALTER EGO OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR ON AN EXISTING CASE (CGC 15-548437).) in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
Alicia N. Vaz (State Bar No. 215081)
2 Scott R. Laes (State Bar No. 307894)
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2100 ELECTRONICALLY
3 Los Angeles, California 90067-3284
Telephone: (310) 284-2200
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
4 Facsimile: (310) 284-2100 County of San Francisco
Email: avaz@coxcastle.com; slaes@coxcastle.com 05/27/2020
5 Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for Defendant BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Deputy Clerk
6 CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM
7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10

11 GOLDEN GATEWAY CENTER, a California Case No. CGC-19-581557
limited partnership,
12 CALSTRS’ MEMORANDUM OF
Plaintiff, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
13 OPPOSITION TO GOLDEN
v. GATEWAY CENTER’S MOTION
14 RE RELATED CASE AND SINGLE
CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’ ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
15 RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and DOES 1 through
10, [Filed Concurrently with CalSTRS’
16 Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of
Defendants. James Wright]
17

18 Date: June 9, 2020
Time: 9:30 a.m.
19 Dept: 206
20 Date Action Filed: December 13, 2019
FAC Filed: February 28, 2020
21

27
28
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE &
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM (“CalSTRS”)

4 once again opposes Plaintiff GOLDEN GATEWAY CENTER’s (“Gateway”) request to relate a

5 complex case that was filed in 2015, in which CalSTRS was not a party, Golden Gateway Center

6 v. San Francisco Waterfront Partners II, LLC, San Francisco County Superior Court Case

7 No. CGC-15-548437 (the “Initial Case”), to this recently-filed non-complex single cause of

8 action declaratory relief case, Case No. CGC-19-581557 (the “New Case”). On December 23,

9 2019, CalSTRS filed its Objection and Response in Opposition to Notices of Related Cases
10 received from Gateway along service of the Summons and Complaint in this action, explaining
11 why relating the cases was improper and not supported by the law or the facts.1 The cases were
12 not related at that time. Nothing has changed since then. For the same reasons as CalSTRS

13 opposed the Notice of Related Cases approximately six months ago, it again opposes relating the

14 two cases now. Other than the single assignment designation (which CalSTRS does not oppose),

15 this Motion should be denied and the two cases cannot and should not be related.

16 As an initial matter, California Rule of Court 3.300(h)(3) precludes “cases that have been

17 designated as complex by the parties or determined to be complex by the court” from being

18 related. The Initial Case is a complex case and, therefore, it cannot be related with the non-

19 complex New Case. For that reason alone, the Motion must be denied.
20 Even if one of the cases at issue were not complex and Rule 3.300(h)(3) were somehow

21 inapplicable, the Motion should be denied since none of the four criteria for relating cases set

22 forth in California Rule of Court 3.300(a) has been or can be met. These criteria include that the

23 cases:
(1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar
24 claims;
25 (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions,
incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or
26 substantially identical questions of law or fact;
27
28 1
CalSTRS incorporates that Objection into this Opposition.
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -2-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
1 (3) Involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the
same property; or
2
(4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of
3 judicial resources if heard by different judges.

4 Gateway’s Motion is rife with misrepresentations about the Initial Case and the New Case, but

5 even so Gateway has failed to make the requisite showing under Rule 3.300(a).

6 First, Gateway asserts that “[b]oth actions involve the identical claims and the same

7 parties.” But this is blatantly false. San Francisco Waterfront Partners II, LLC (“Waterfront”) –

8 the defendant in the Initial Case – is not a party to this New Case. And, contrary to Gateway’s

9 assertion, CalSTRS is not a party to the Initial Case. Rather, CalSTRS’ role in the Initial Case

10 was extremely limited, and CalSTRS and its counsel (which is different than counsel for

11 Waterfront in the Initial Case) only became involved on a limited basis after Gateway forced

12 CalSTRS to participate as a third-party by serving numerous document and deposition subpoenas

13 to which CalSTRS had to respond. Gateway attempts to get around this by claiming that

14 CalSTRS “funded” the Initial Case and therefore should be held to have participated in it, but this

15 is not only inaccurate, it is not the test for relating cases. And, Gateway’s entire Motion puts the

16 cart before the horse – assuming that Waterfront and CalSTRS are alter egos even though that is

17 not true, has not been proven and is entirely the basis for this New Case.

18 Second, the Initial Case involved contract and fraud claims solely between Gateway and

19 Waterfront arising out of an agreement relating to parcels of property owned by Gateway on

20 which Waterfront had an option to purchase. None of these claims are asserted in the New Case.

21 The New Case is for declaratory relief based on a purported alter ego theory. An alter ego

22 analysis in the New Case requires the determination of totally different questions of fact and law

23 than those in the Initial Case, i.e., showing each of three distinct elements relating to the

24 relationship between Waterfront and CalSTRS, none of which were at issue in the Initial Case.

25 Finally, relating the two cases will neither save nor avoid duplication of judicial resources

26 because the procedural posture and the legal issues in the two cases are separate and distinct from

27 each other. The Initial Case was deemed complex and put on the complex docket. The instant

28 action is a simple case for declaratory relief. Unnecessarily taking up a place on the complex
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -3-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
1 docket and burdening the complex department would waste this scarce judicial resource. In any

2 event, the Initial Case has already been tried and a Judgment, the only monetary component of

3 which is an award of attorney’s fees and cost, has been rendered. Waterfront has appealed both

4 the Judgment and the subsequent award of fees and costs, which remain pending.2 This New Case

5 is in its infancy stages, having been filed recently. CalSTRS did not participate in any of the

6 discovery in the Initial Case (other than what it produced or the deposition testimony its

7 employees provided)3 and as Gateway concedes, it intends to conduct discovery in this New

8 Case. Accordingly, relating the two cases will not change the amount of discovery to be done or

9 the motions to be brought in the New Case – all of which will be necessary whether or not the
10 cases are related.
11 Simply put, there are no grounds to relate the Initial Case with the New Case and the
12 portion of Gateway’s Motion requesting that the two cases be related should be denied (CalSTRS
13 does not oppose the request for assigning the New Case to a single department for all purposes, to
14 which it informed Gateway it would agree after receiving the Motion).
15 II. RULE 3.300(h)(3) PRECLUDES THE COURT FROM RELATING THE CASES
16 Rule 3.300(h)(3) expressly exempts “complex” cases from relation under 3.300(h)(1).
17 There is no dispute that the Initial Case has been and is designated complex. As such, the Initial
18 Case and the New Case at issue in this Motion should not be related as requested by Gateway.
19 III. DESPITE GATEWAY’S FALSE STATEMENTS, THE TWO CASES DO NOT
INVOLVE THE SAME PARTIES AND ARE NOT BASED ON REMOTELY THE
20 SAME OR SIMILAR CLAIMS
21 Gateway’s Motion also fails to demonstrate that the cases should be related under any of

22 the criteria set forth in Rule 3.300(a). The first criterion under Rule 3.300(a) permits cases to be

23 2
Because the pending appeals may modify or reverse the Judgment entered in the Initial Case and render
24 this case moot in its entirety, CalSTRS filed a Motion to Stay the Proceedings that is set to be heard by
agreement of the parties on the same day as this Motion to Relate Cases. It is CalSTRS’ position that its
25 Motion to Stay should be decided before any other decision is made in this case, including this Motion.
3
26 While Gateway has indicated that it will “request that CalSTRS stipulate that the discovery and evidence
admitted at trial [in the Initial Case] can be admitted in the trial of this [New Case]”, other than with
27 respect to the documents CalSTRS produced and the testimony its witnesses gave pursuant to subpoenas,
CalSTRS could not agree to such a request because (i) it does not know what information was exchanged
28 during discovery (other than what it produced); (ii) does not have access to the documents produced or the
testimony given; and (iii) did not participate in the trial other than having a single witness testify.
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -4-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
1 related if they “[i]nvolve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims.” The Rule

2 is written in the conjunctive, requiring that the case must both “involve the same parties” and be

3 “based on the same or similar claims.”

4 Gateway attempts to gloss over this requirement, falsely asserting that “[b]oth actions

5 involve the identical claims and the same parties.” (Mot. at 6:6-7.) But this case does not involve

6 the same parties. The only common party between the two cases is the plaintiff, Gateway. Indeed,

7 Gateway is seeking to amend the judgment in the Initial Case to add CalSTRS as an alter ego.

8 Contrary to Gateway’s assertions, the determination of whether CalSTRS is the alter ego of

9 Waterfront has not yet been made and is the entire and sole purpose of the New Case.4
10 Moreover, the cases are not “based on the same or similar claims.” And, the claims are not
11 similar at all. In the Initial Case, the issue was whether an option agreement between Gateway
12 and Waterfront was breached, terminated and/or rescinded. Gateway asserted a cause of action for
13 declaratory relief, seeking a declaration of the Court that the option agreement terminated and it
14 could retain millions in option payments. Waterfront asserted causes of action for rescission,
15 breach of the different agreements between the parties, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
16 The New Case has no relation whatsoever to those claims. Rather, in the New Case,
17 Gateway is simply seeking to amend the Judgment in the Initial Case to add CalSTRS as a
18 judgment debtor if Gateway can show that CalSTRS is the alter-ego of Waterfront – a new and
19 completely unrelated claim, and one which CalSTRS believes fails. The Initial Case did not
20 involve CalSTRS in any substantive manner and tellingly CalSTRS was treated as a third-party

21 by Gateway in the Initial Case. The issues between the two cases are not similar, much less

22 “based on the same or similar claims.”

23 Gateway cites to various cases, none of which support its position. Misik v. D’Arco, 197

24 Cal. App. 4th 1065 (2011), was decided in the context of a motion to amend a judgment to add an

25 alter ego judgment, filed in the same case where the judgment was entered. 197 Cal. App. 4th at

26
4
27 Gateway falsely states that the Initial Case arose from “the business relationship between Gateway,
Waterfront and CalSTRS.” (Mot. at 6:8-10.) This is an intentional misrepresentation of the relationship
28 between the parties. The subject agreement was between Gateway and Waterfront only. (FAC ¶ 12.)
CalSTRS was merely a member of the Waterfront LLC. (FAC, Ex. B.)
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -5-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
1 1068-69. It has no bearing on the determination of whether cases should be related. Similarly,

2 neither Bravo v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1489 (2007) nor Cole v. Hammond, 37 Cal.

3 App. 5th 912 (2019) have any application to the issue at hand and do not support Gateway’s

4 contentions. Bravo merely states that a peremptory challenge is not timely where it is filed in an

5 action that is merely a “continuation” of another case – meaning that it “involves substantially the

6 same issues and matters necessarily relevant and material to the issues involved in the original

7 action.” 149 Cal. App. 4th at 1494. Indeed, the court in Bravo specified that even where the cases

8 are related, this does not mean that the second case is a continuation of the first. Id. (“Here,

9 although the two cases involve the same employee and the same employer, the current action
10 arises out of later events distinct from those in the previous action.”). Moreover, the court
11 recognized that “[i]f the [peremptory challenge] is timely and filed in proper form, the trial court
12 must accept it without further inquiry, and the disqualification is effective immediately.” Id. at

13 1493 (emphasis added). Cole also has no bearing on whether this case is a “continuation” of the

14 Initial Case. Rather, it merely restates the trial court’s previous holding in that case that the cases

15 were related, which was proper because the new case related to alleged breach of a prior order by

16 the probate court. 37 Cal. App. 5th at 916-17.

17 IV. THE TWO CASES DO NOT REQUIRE THE DETERMINATION OF THE SAME
OR SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT
18

19 Gateway again misrepresents the facts in an effort to twist the circumstances to conform
20 with the requirements of Rule 3.300(a). Without providing any detail or background, Gateway

21 concludes that “[b]oth actions arise from the same transactions, incidents, events, real property,

22 agreements, and damages.” (Mot. at 6:8-10.) However, as an initial matter, it is notable that

23 Gateway does not address the other part of Rule 3.300(a)(2), which states “requiring the

24 determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact.” The full text of this

25 prong of the Rule makes clear that cases may only be related if they arise from the same

26 transactions or events so that it requires determination of the same or substantially identical

27 questions or law or fact. Merely arising from the same transactions or events is insufficient.
28 Gateway’s failure to address this additional requirement is telling.
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -6-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
1 In reality, there is almost no commonality between the two cases. The causes of action in

2 the two cases are completely different, as are the issues of law and fact in the cases. The Initial

3 Case was a dispute over the option agreement between Gateway and Waterfront, and its

4 negotiation and termination, and involved years of discovery between the parties and of third-

5 parties like CalSTRS. The New Case is solely for declaratory relief and is only about CalSTRS’

6 relationship with Waterfront. The Court’s findings regarding the claims pertaining to the option

7 agreement between Gateway and Waterfront in the Initial Case have absolutely no bearing on the

8 determination of alter ego liability in the New Case – the sole issue to be decided in this case.

9 Alter-ego liability is determined by looking at three elements that were never at issue for any of
10 the causes of action in the Initial Case: (1) unity of interest and ownership between an entity and
11 its alleged alter ego such that the separate personalities of the entity and the alter ego do not in
12 reality exist, (2) abuse of the corporate privilege and bad faith conduct by the alleged alter ego
13 which would cause an inequitable result absent imposing alter ego liability, and, since Gateway is
14 looking to add CalSTRS to a pre-existing judgment, (3) control of the litigation such that the
15 alleged alter ego was virtually represented in the litigation and at the trial. See, e.g., Sonora
16 Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 523, 538-39 (2000) (setting forth first two
17 prongs necessary to apply alter ego doctrine generally); 21st Century Fin. Services LLC v.
18 Manchester, 255 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1035 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (adding third prong where party seeks
19 to add a party to a judgment). These elements obviously are quite different from the elements of
20 breach of contract, rescission, fraud and negligence asserted and decided in the Initial Case.

21 Therefore, the two cases do not arise from the same facts requiring resolution of the same

22 issues of fact or law, and the Motion should be denied for this additional independent reason.

23 V. THERE WILL NOT BE A DUPLICATION OF JUDICIAL RESOURCES IF THE
TWO CASES ARE HEARD BY DIFFERENT JUDGES
24

25 The judge in the Initial Case did not make any alter ego determination. And whether

26 CalSTRS is or is not the alter ego of Waterfront was not an issue presented to the jury and has

27 absolutely no bearing on the jury’s conclusion in the Initial Case that Waterfront was not entitled
28 to rescind the option agreement between itself and Gateway. Indeed, in complete contrast to the
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -7-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
1 Initial Case, the focus of the New Case will be on the relationship between CalSTRS and

2 Waterfront – not the option agreement between Gateway and Waterfront.

3 Moreover, in this New Case, discovery has not been conducted, dispositive motions have

4 not been brought and a trial has not been had. Yet, all of those things have already occurred in the

5 Initial Case and in fact the case is pending on appeal. Because the New Case is in its initial stages,

6 whatever judge is assigned to the New Case will have to treat it as new. Gateway’s Motion admits

7 that “additional discovery will be needed in this Action,” despite the exhaustive discovery

8 conducted previously. Given Gateway’s scorched-Earth tactics in the Initial Case, which was

9 experienced by CalSTRS as a third-party, this likely will include expansive and overly broad
10 discovery, which will force CalSTRS to bring discovery motions.5 Relating the cases will have
11 not changed this. Though Gateway contends that in an opposition filed by CalSTRS, it stated that

12 the alter-ego discovery will overlap with the discovery conducted in the Initial Case, this is

13 another misrepresentation of the facts. This misrepresentation can be determined simply by

14 reading the statement made in CalSTRS’ opposition. CalSTRS simply asserted that it had

15 produced extensive information in response to Gateway’s exhaustive discovery in the Initial Case

16 and has no additional information to produce that would somehow support an alter ego

17 determination. Nowhere does CalSTRS contend that there is any overlap or duplication between

18 the discovery issues in the Initial Case and those in the New Case. There are no efficiencies to be

19 gained or judicial resources to preserve given the procedural posture of both cases.
20 And, although Gateway asserts otherwise, CalSTRS has the absolute right to file a

21 peremptory challenge if it so chooses, and upon its proper filing, a new judge must be assigned

22 for the New Case. Gateway’s footnote 6 claims that a peremptory challenge would somehow be

23 improper. But none of the cases cited by Gateway stands for this proposition (because it would be

24 5
Gateway brought a Motion to Amend the Judgment in the Initial Case, which CalSTRS opposed, in part
25 on the grounds that Gateway had failed to present any evidence supporting an alter ego determination.
While that motion was pending, Gateway filed a Motion to take Alter-Ego Discovery. When it was clear
26 that the Motion to take Alter-Ego Discovery was likely to be denied and that Gateway could not meet its
burden to support its Motion to Amend the Judgment in the Initial Case, Gateway suddenly withdrew both
27 motions. The clear implication is that Gateway intends on doing and needs to do significant additional
discovery in this New Case that it would not have been permitted to do in the Initial Case. Now, Gateway
28 wants to start from scratch with its scorched-Earth tactics to harass CalSTRS and force it to incur
substantial costs and fees along the way before its attempt to add CalSTRS as a judgment debtor fails.
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -8-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
1 entirely proper), and Gateway misrepresents their holdings. In Maas v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 5th

2 962 (2016), the Court of Appeal found that a petition could properly disqualify a judge assigned

3 to decide a habeas corpus petition if it is the same judge who heard the underlying criminal case,

4 because that is merely a continuation of the prior action. 1 Cal. 5th at 980-81. This case is not a

5 continuation of the prior case – it is wholly separate – and therefore this rule does not apply.

6 Orion Communications, Inc. v. Superior Court, 226 Cal. App. 4th 152 (2014), is similarly

7 inapplicable. Indeed, Orion involved a challenge by a codefendant, not one in a completely new

8 lawsuit, as here. 226 Cal. App. 4th at 159-62. If CalSTRS elects to file a peremptory challenge,

9 the New Case would then just have to be reassigned again, resulting in further unnecessary delay
10 and waste.
11 Thus, relating the cases will not expedite or simplify the case or save judicial resources
12 nor will there be a duplication of resources – much less a substantial duplication – if the cases are
13 not related.
14 VI. CONCLUSION
15 Under Rule 3.300(h)(3) the cases should not be related because the Initial Case is
16 complex. In any event, there is nothing to be gained by deeming these two cases related and,
17 contrary to Gateway’s assertions, there are no grounds upon which to relate the two cases.
18 Procedurally, the cases are worlds apart with the Initial Case already completed and up on appeal.
19 The cases are also substantively different, as the Initial Case involves complex contract and fraud
20 claims, while the instant action deals with an entirely new and separate declaratory relief alter ego

21 claim. The Court should therefore deny Gateway’s request to relate the cases.

22 DATED: May 27, 2020 COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
23

24 By:
Scott R. Laes
25 Alicia N. Vaz
Attorneys for Defendant
26 CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
27
28
LAW OFFICES OF
COX, CASTLE & 051257\11625485v2 -9-
NICHOLSON LLP
LOS ANGELES, CA
OPP. TO MOT. FOR RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION
PROOF OF SERVICE AND CERTIFICATION

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2029 Century Park East, 21st
Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067-3284. My email address is agillespie@coxcastle.com.
On May 27, 2020, I served the foregoing document(s) described as CALSTRS’
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO GOLDEN
GATEWAY CENTER’S MOTION RE RELATED CASE AND SINGLE ASSIGNMENT
DESIGNATION on ALL INTERESTED PARTIES in this action by sending the original
a true copy thereof as follows:

Glenn P. Zwang, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Golden Gateway
James Wright, Esq. Center, a California limited partnership
Petr H. Bales, Esq.
Buchalter, A Professional Corporation
55 Second Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94105-3493
Email: gzwang@buchalter.com
jwright@buchalter.com
pbales@buchalter.com

(BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) - On May 27, 2020, at Los Angeles,
California, I served the above-referenced document by electronic mail to the e-mail address
of the addressee(s) pursuant to Rule 2.251 of the California Rules of Court. The
transmission was complete and without error and I did not receive, within a reasonable time
after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
I hereby certify that the above document was printed on recycled paper.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 27, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.

____________________________________________
Ann Gillespie

Case Info

Judge

Jeffrey S. Ross Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 27, 2020

Case Filing Date

December 13, 2019

County

Parties

CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Defendant
DOES 1 TO 100 Defendant
GOLDEN GATEWAY CENTER A CALIFORNIA LIMITED Plaintiff
LAES, SCOTT R. Attorney for the Defendant
VAZ, ALICIA N. Attorney for the Defendant
WRIGHT, JAMES BENTON Attorney for the Plaintiff
ZWANG, GLENN PHILIP Attorney for the Plaintiff
Peter Bales Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Carly Alameda Attorneys for Defendants
Larisa Meisenheimer Attorney
Robert Holtzapple Attorneys for Defendants
Randall Manvitz Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard Robinson Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: GOLDEN GATEWAY CENTER A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties