arrow left
arrow right
  • CITY OF LOS ANGELES VS MARCO NASER KHORASANI ET AL Eminent Domain/Condemnation (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • CITY OF LOS ANGELES VS MARCO NASER KHORASANI ET AL Eminent Domain/Condemnation (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

C lt/1-01 5 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WII'HOUT ATTOF(NEY /Yarn Slale Bann mace and ad I .31 FOR COURT LSF ONI LEX OPLIS Mohammed K. Ghods (SBN 144616); Jeremy A. Rhyne (SBN 217378) 2100 N. Broadway, Suite 210, Santa Ana, CA 92706 TELEPHONE NO 714-558-8580FAx No iopbonal) 714-558-8579 mghods(u,1exopus E-MAILADDREss iopacnali ftnn.corn; jrhyne(bolexopus ftrm.corn ATTDRNEY FQR ildamei Defendant Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANCTEI.FS sTREETADDREss I I I N. Hill Street MAILINGAODRESs IlillStreet I I I N. GITYANDzlpcoDE Los Angeles, 90012 BRANcHNAMF. Stanley Mosk Courthouse CASF NUMBER PI AINTIFF/PETITIDNER. City of Los Angeles, et al. BC701900 DEPENDANT/REsPoNDENT: Marco Khorasani, et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER Hon. Hollie.l. Fugie DEPT NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 56 /den/ify, in chronological order according lo dale of filing, a/I cases related to the case referenced above. a. Starline Tours of I-Iollywoode Inc. v. Marco Khorasani, et al. Titie: b. Case number: 19STCV03066 c. Court: ~y same as above other state or federal court (name and address): d. Department: 45 e. Case type: f. Filing date: E] limited civil Md Januaty 29, 2019 unlimited civil M probate M family law ~ other (specify). g. h. Has this case been designated or determined as "complex?" Relationship of this case to the case referenced above (check a// that apply): ~ Yes K No Electronically Received 02/06/2019 02:55 PM involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims. arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact. involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. Additional explanation is attached in attachment 1 h i. Status of case: pending dismissed ~ disposed of by ludgment with ~ without prejudice 2. a. Title: b. Case number: c Court: ~ same as above other state or federal court (name and address). d. Department: Page I oi 3 F mapp edfo Op: caluae Cal 3 cfco '! e333C JomcdCc .IoaCaafc a NOTICE OF RELATED CASE