Legal Opinion
Cooksey v. ALEXAKIS
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 21, 2004No. B166201PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOSK, J.
Plaintiff and appellant Danelle Cooksey (appellant) appeals from an order denying her request under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, 1 subdivision (h) to continue a motion for summary judgment brought by defendant and respondent Peter Alexakis (respondent). Appellant claims that a continuance was necessary because appellant’s expert had to review outstanding written discovery responses and a transcript of respondent’s prospective deposition before finalizing his opinions. Appellant contends that the trial court’s denial of the continuance was an abuse of discretion. We…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Flanagan v. FlanaganCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Roth v. RhodesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- FSR Brokerage, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Aguimatang v. California State LotteryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Jade Fashion & Co. v. Harkham Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Rodriguez v. OtoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Davis v. NadrichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Won Shil Park v. First American Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.