the people of the state of california, Plaintiff, vs. venice suites, llc, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: BC 624350
Hearing Date: November 8, 2018
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS VENICE SUITES, LLC AND CARL LAMBERT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL
Background
Plaintiff the People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action on June 17, 2016 by filing a Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and Civil Penalties for: 1) Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 11.00; 2) Public Nuisance in Violation of Civil Code Section 3479 et seq.; 3) Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.); and 4) False Advertising Practices (Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.) (the “Complaint”) against Defendants Venice Suites, LLC (“Venice Suites”) and Carl Lambert (“Lambert”) (jointly, “Defendants”). After the Court’s ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, the
Hearing Date
November 08, 2018
Type
Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
the people of the state of california, Plaintiff, vs. venice suites, llc, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: BC 624350
Hearing Date: November 8, 2018
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS VENICE SUITES, LLC AND CARL LAMBERT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL
Background
Plaintiff the People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action on June 17, 2016 by filing a Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and Civil Penalties for: 1) Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 11.00; 2) Public Nuisance in Violation of Civil Code Section 3479 et seq.; 3) Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.); and 4) False Advertising Practices (Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.) (the “Complaint”) against Defendants Venice Suites, LLC (“Venice Suites”) and Carl Lambert (“Lambert”) (jointly, “Defendants”). After the Court’s ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, the