On November 30, 2021 a
Notice of Appeal
was filed
involving a dispute between
A.D. Improvements, Inc.,
and
California Department Of Transportation,
Does 1 Through 10,
for Writ of Mandate Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
‘
v ORIGINAL V
./ . I
APP-002
ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WIHOUT ATTORNEY; STA—E BAR No.: 2965 1 8 / 248344 FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Dustin Lozano, Esq. / Emily Zung Manninger, Esq.
FIRM NAME. HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY NIEVES DARLING & MAH, INC.
STREET ADDRESSJOI North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor
CITY: Pasadena
TELEPHONENO. (626) 440—5200
STATECA ZIP CODE;91 101-1807
S
F LE I D
FAxNo (626) 796—0107
COUNTVBERS'IQS 308%?1'
E.MAwL ADDRESS: lozano@huntortmann.com / manninger@huntortmann.com RANCHO CUCAMONGA DAgggglgNlco-r
ATTORNEY FOR (name):A.D. Improvements, Inc.
SUPERIOR COU RT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO MAR 1 6 2023
STREET ADDRESS 247 West 3rd Street
MAILING ADDRESS 247 West 3rd Street
cm AND ZIP CODE: San Bernardino, 924 1 5-0210
m .
BRANCH NAME San Bernardino District -
Civil Division
g D’ANE éENRa. DEPUTY
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:AD Improvements, Inc.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: State of California, Department of Transportation
NOTICE OF APPEAL
(UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)
D CROSS-APPEAL CASE NUMBER:
CIVSB 2132716
Notice: Please read Information on Appeal Procedures for Unlimited Civil Cases (Judicial Council form
APP-001) before completing this form. This form must be filed in the superior court, not in the Court of Appeal.
A copy of this form must also be served on the other party or parties to this appeal. You may use an ~
.
applicable Judicial Council form (such as APP—009 or APP-009E) for the proof of service. When this document
has been completed and a copy sewed, the original may then be filed with the court with proof of service.
1‘ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that (name):A.D. Improvements, Inc.
appeals from the following judgment or order in this case, which was entered on (date): January 20, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit A
E
E
Judgment
Judgment
after jury
after court
trial
E
trial
Defaultjudgment
:1 Judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion
E
E
Judgment
Judgment
of dismissal
of dismissal after
under Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 581d, 583.250, 583.360, or 583.430
an order sustaining a demurrer
GE'IH
E
D
An
An order
order after judgment under
or judgment under Code
Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(2)
of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(3)—(13)
Other (describe and specify code section that authorizes this appeal): A8
Please see Attachment A
2. For cross-appeals only: XV:|
a. Date notice of appeal was filed in original appeal:
b. Date superior court clerk mailed notice of original appeal:
c. Court of Appeal case number (if known):
Date: March
Dustin T. Lozano, Esq.
l6, 2023
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
W.
(SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
Page1 of1
Form Apploved for Optional
JJdIcial Councxl of Callforma
Use
NOTICE OF APPEAL/CROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) Cal Rules of Court, rule 8 100
wvvw.courts.ca.gov
””002 [Rewdaomfil- EW 7504003 (Appellate) Westlaw Doc & Form Builder-
V \r
MC-025
CASE NUMBER:
—SHORT TITLE AD Improvements,
Transportation
Inc. v. State 0f California, Depafiment of
CIVSB 2132716
ATTACHMENT (Number): 1
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
Order denying petition for writ ofmandate under CCP § 1085. [A petition to the superior court for a writ of mandamus initiates a
“special proceeding.” CCP § 1067 et seq. As such, ajudgment 0r order granting or denying the petition is appealable. See Bloom v.
Mun.Ct. (People) (1976) 16 Cal.3d 71, 74-75; Telish v. California State Personnel Bd. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1482 (judgment
denying petition for writ 0f mandate); Public Defenders' Organization v. County of Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409,
(citing text)——order appealable despite lack of separate formaljudgment; Valero Refining C0.-California v. Bay Area Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist. Hearing Bd. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 618, 633 (“the appealablejudgment was the court's order granting a writ 0f mandate,
not a ‘judgment’ that it subsequently entered”).]
(If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty ofperjury, all statements in this Page of
Attachment are made under penalty of perjury)
(Add pages as required)
F°jgggfi®ofigé§fg9ggimm4ooz ATTACHMENT wgyflngflffl-fgg;
M0025 [Revv July 1, 20091 to Judicial Council Form
Document Filed Date
March 16, 2023
Case Filing Date
November 30, 2021
Category
Writ of Mandate Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
‘ v ORIGINAL V ./ . I APP-002 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WIHOUT ATTORNEY; STA—E BAR No.: 2965 1 8 / 248344 FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: Dustin Lozano, Esq. / Emily Zung Manninger, Esq. FIRM NAME. HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY NIEVES DARLING & MAH, INC. STREET ADDRESSJOI North Lake Avenue, 7th Floor CITY: Pasadena TELEPHONENO. (626) 440—5200 STATECA ZIP CODE;91 101-1807 S F LE I D FAxNo (626) 796—0107 COUNTVBERS'IQS 308%?1' E.MAwL ADDRESS: lozano@huntortmann.com / manninger@huntortmann.com RANCHO CUCAMONGA DAgggglgNlco-r ATTORNEY FOR (name):A.D. Improvements, Inc. SUPERIOR COU RT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO MAR 1 6 2023 STREET ADDRESS 247 West 3rd Street MAILING ADDRESS 247 West 3rd Street cm AND ZIP CODE: San Bernardino, 924 1 5-0210 m . BRANCH NAME San Bernardino District - Civil Division g D’ANE éENRa. DEPUTY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:AD Improvements, Inc. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: State of California, Department of Transportation NOTICE OF APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) D CROSS-APPEAL CASE NUMBER: CIVSB 2132716 Notice: Please read Information on Appeal Procedures for Unlimited Civil Cases (Judicial Council form APP-001) before completing this form. This form must be filed in the superior court, not in the Court of Appeal. A copy of this form must also be served on the other party or parties to this appeal. You may use an ~ . applicable Judicial Council form (such as APP—009 or APP-009E) for the proof of service. When this document has been completed and a copy sewed, the original may then be filed with the court with proof of service. 1‘ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that (name):A.D. Improvements, Inc. appeals from the following judgment or order in this case, which was entered on (date): January 20, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit A E E Judgment Judgment after jury after court trial E trial Defaultjudgment :1 Judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion E E Judgment Judgment of dismissal of dismissal after under Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 581d, 583.250, 583.360, or 583.430 an order sustaining a demurrer GE'IH E D An An order order after judgment under or judgment under Code Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(2) of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(3)—(13) Other (describe and specify code section that authorizes this appeal): A8 Please see Attachment A 2. For cross-appeals only: XV:| a. Date notice of appeal was filed in original appeal: b. Date superior court clerk mailed notice of original appeal: c. Court of Appeal case number (if known): Date: March Dustin T. Lozano, Esq. l6, 2023 (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) W. (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) Page1 of1 Form Apploved for Optional JJdIcial Councxl of Callforma Use NOTICE OF APPEAL/CROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) Cal Rules of Court, rule 8 100 wvvw.courts.ca.gov ””002 [Rewdaomfil- EW 7504003 (Appellate) Westlaw Doc & Form Builder- V \r MC-025 CASE NUMBER: —SHORT TITLE AD Improvements, Transportation Inc. v. State 0f California, Depafiment of CIVSB 2132716 ATTACHMENT (Number): 1 (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) Order denying petition for writ ofmandate under CCP § 1085. [A petition to the superior court for a writ of mandamus initiates a “special proceeding.” CCP § 1067 et seq. As such, ajudgment 0r order granting or denying the petition is appealable. See Bloom v. Mun.Ct. (People) (1976) 16 Cal.3d 71, 74-75; Telish v. California State Personnel Bd. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1482 (judgment denying petition for writ 0f mandate); Public Defenders' Organization v. County of Riverside (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409, (citing text)——order appealable despite lack of separate formaljudgment; Valero Refining C0.-California v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. Hearing Bd. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 618, 633 (“the appealablejudgment was the court's order granting a writ 0f mandate, not a ‘judgment’ that it subsequently entered”).] (If the item that this Attachment concerns is made under penalty ofperjury, all statements in this Page of Attachment are made under penalty of perjury) (Add pages as required) F°jgggfi®ofigé§fg9ggimm4ooz ATTACHMENT wgyflngflffl-fgg; M0025 [Revv July 1, 20091 to Judicial Council Form