Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS ROBERT CLIPPINGER

The court awards Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP judgment in the amount of $111,065.70. Petitioner to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2018

ULTIMATE BRAND MANAGEMENT LLC VS JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MIT

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, et al. (BC715319); Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP v. Ultimate Brand Management LLC, et al. (BS173756) In the event that the pertinent judge under CRC 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2018

ULTIMATE BRAND MANAGEMENT LLC VS JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MIT

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP, Defendant. Case No.: BC715319 Hearing Date: October 31, 2018 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION BACKGROUND Plaintiff Ultimate Brand Management LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges four causes of action against Defendants Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (“JMBM”); Joel Deutsch, the individual; Joel Deutsch P.C.; Jonathan Weininger, the individual; Jonathan Weininger P.C.; and Michael Belch (collectively “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2018

STEPHEN CARPENTER, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THOMAS S. TEDESCO V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL

Defendants Burton Mitchell and Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP are to give notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, forthwith.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

THOMAS S. TEDESCO, ETC., ET AL. V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.

Defendant Burton, Mitchell, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP is to give notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, forthwith.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2018

STEPHEN CARPENTER, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THOMAS S. TEDESCO V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL

Defendants Burton Mitchell and Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP are to give notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, forthwith.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS NEW YORK DREAM REGIONAL CENTER

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP v. New York Dream Regional Center, et al. MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1285) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Petitioner in the amount of $24,315.01 principal, plus prejudgment interest at 10 percent per annum from the July 22, 2019 date of the Arbitration Award.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP, VS GEORGE LUK, L.A. ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, INC

On April 12, 2018, Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration, asking for an order compelling Respondents George Luk and L.A. Entertainment Center, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) to submit to arbitration. Petitioner contends that it had commenced an arbitration proceeding against Respondents, but Respondents have not participated in the arbitration. (Pet. p. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 27, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT CLIPPINGER VS JEFFERS MANGEL BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP

., Plaintiffs, vs. jeffer mangels butler & Mitchell llp, Defendants. Case No.: BC 712939 Hearing Date: January 14, 2019 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP, VS ROBERT CLIPPINGER, ET AL.

Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondents Robert Clippinger aka Bob Clippinger, Clippinger Investment Properties, Inc., Bob Clippinger as Trustee of the Robert Clippinger and Grace Y. Clippinger Living Trust Dated May 15, 1991 on April 12, 2018. However, Petitioner has not filed a proof of personal service of the Summons, Petition, and Notice of Hearing with respect to any Respondent.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP, VS GEORGE LUK, L.A. ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, INC

Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondents George Luk (“Luk”) and LA Entertainment Center, Inc. (“LAEC”) on April 12, 2018. Petitioner filed a proof of personal service of the Summons, Petition, and Notice of Hearing with respect to Luk on May 2, 2018. Petitioner also filed a proof of service by mailing with respect to the same documents on Luk on the same date.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP, VS GEORGE LUK, L.A. ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, INC

Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondents George Luk (“Luk”) and LA Entertainment Center, Inc. (“LAEC”) on April 12, 2018. Petitioner filed a proof of personal service of the Summons, Petition, and Notice of Hearing with respect to Luk on May 2, 2018. Petitioner also filed a proof of service by mailing with respect to the same documents on Luk on the same date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HELEN LIN VS MIREYA B. CORONADO, ET AL

Moving Party: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Name of Client: Defendant River Forest Financial, LLC (No Opposition) RULING: [No opposition] Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. Counsel is ordered to complete the Order to provide the client’s current telephone number at paragraph 6, and to correct the order to reflect the next scheduled hearing on April 5, 2017, and what it will concern at paragraph 7.

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NICOLE TATE-NAGHI VS STEVEN R. FRIEDMAN, ET AL.

Defendants Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP and Robert E. Braun’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

ESTRADA V. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1314; Rebmann v. Rohde (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1293; Dornbirer v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 831, 841.) Defendant’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment Theron In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) The court will sign the proposed judgment. Defendant shall give notice of the rulings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2016

HELEN LIN VS MIREYA B. CORONADO, ET AL

Moving Party: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Name of Client: Defendant River Forest Financial, LLC (No Opposition) RULING: [No Opposition] Motion to be relieved as counsel is denied without prejudice. The moving papers are not accompanied by the lodging of a proposed order prepared on the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel— Civil form. See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 (e).

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS NEW YORK DREAM REGIONAL CENTER

Discussion Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondent New York Dream Regional Center fka Tri State USA Regional Center, LLC (“Respondent”) on January 14, 2019. Petitioner filed a proof of service of the Summons, Petition, and Notice of Hearing on February 14, 2019. To date, no response has been filed.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS RAJESH K. GUPTA

Background On August 21, 2018, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Rajesh K. Gupta (“Respondent”) in the sum of $17,065.86. (Pet., Exh. 2.) On September 18, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”). The Court notes that Petitioner fails to use Form ADR-106 for this Petition, but should use Form ADR-106 for their future petitions to confirm arbitration award. II.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS RAJESH K. GUPTA

Background On August 21, 2018, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Rajesh K. Gupta (“Respondent”) in the sum of $17,065.86. (Pet., Exh. 2.) On September 18, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”). The Court notes that Petitioner fails to use Form ADR-106 for this Petition, but should use Form ADR-106 for their future petitions to confirm arbitration award. II.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TOMAS CERVANTES VS LISI AEROSPACE NORTH AMERICA INC ET AL

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1308, citing Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 415.) A “misrepresentation as to the character or essential terms of a proposed contract can render the promisor’s assent ineffective.” (Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. v. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1308.) Here, Plaintiff does not set forth any evidence that any misrepresentations were made to him.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2018

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

Counsel for Plaintiff/moving party: Fred Silberberg; Susan Allison, Lauren Babst (Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP) Counsel for Defendant: Michael W.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

TRUE COLORS INTL. VS. LOWRY

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1313; Cummings v. Future Nissan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 321, 329.) As for the contention that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and that the award cannot be fairly corrected, the Lowrys have provided zero explanation as to how so. The Lowry’s memorandum of points and authorities on this issue is so vague it is nearly unintelligible. (See Opp. P&As at pp. 13-14.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2017

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS UNTIMATE BRAND MANAG

BS173756 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP v. Ultimate Brand Management, LLC, et al. Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is granted as to respondents Ultimate Brand Management, LLC.,and 4 What It’s Worth, Inc. only. Respondents’ Contentions The entire agreement is the retainer agreement, not just the arbitration provision.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2018

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS UNTIMATE BRAND MANAG

BS173756 Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP v. Ultimate Brand Management, LLC, et al. Petitioner’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is granted as to respondents Ultimate Brand Management, LLC.,and 4 What It’s Worth, Inc. only. Ultimate Brands and 4 What It’s Worth are ordered to arbitration. The arbitration provision does not state what arbitration service is to be used. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the choice of arbitrator.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

FRANCIS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC VS LANE JR, MARTIN KEITH

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1299, 1311.) “A proposed neutral arbitrator must timely disclose to the parties ‘all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial’ . . . .” (Id. at 1310 (quoting CCP section 1281.9(a)).) The disclosure requirement “involves an objective test that focuses on a reasonable person’s perception of bias and does not require actual bias.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.