Legal Opinion
First Federal Bank of California v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 25, 2006No. B191287PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ZELON, J.
Petitioner, First Federal Bank of California, seeks a writ of mandamus, asserting that the denial of its peremptory challenge after remand from this court violated Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Because our remand required the trial court to conduct additional proceedings on the issue of attorney’s fees, we find the peremptory challenge should have been allowed, grant the writ, and remand.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter began as an action by real party in interest, Prestige of Beverly Hills, Inc. (Prestige) against Petitioner First Federal Bank of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Peracchi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Stegs Investments v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Stubblefield Construction Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Geddes v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Paterno v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. Superior Court of Orange CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Akopyan v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Akopyan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Dillon v. Super. Ct. CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
- First Federal v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.