DOCSLIB.ORG

ANDREW BAUM - State Bar No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ANDREW BAUM - State Bar No Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/23/2020 10:50 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk 20STCV36391 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Monica Bachner 1 ANDREW BAUM - State Bar No. 190397 [email protected] 2 JESSE B. LEVIN - State Bar No. 268047 [email protected] 3 GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP 4 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 5 Telephone: (310) 553-3000 Facsimile: (310) 556-2920 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 Bryan Callen 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 Deadline BRYAN CALLEN, an Individual, Case No. 12 Plaintiff, Unlimited Jurisdiction 13 v. COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL 14 INTERFERENCE WITH GABRIEL TIGERMAN, an Individual, and CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 15 DOES 1-10, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Bryan Callen alleges as follows: 21 NATURE OF THE ACTION 22 1. This lawsuit arises from Defendant Gabriel Tigerman’s ongoing campaign to destroy 23 the livelihood of actor and stand-up comic Bryan Callen through threats, harassment, and 24 intimidation of third parties that dare contract with him. Driven by the false allegation that 25 Mr. Callen assaulted his wife over 20 years ago, Mr. Tigerman has sent and continues to send 26 Mr. Callen’s representatives and others direct demands that they cease doing business with him, or 27 else be falsely branded as supporters of sexual assault. 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384 1 2. As a direct result of Mr. Tigerman’s vengeful interference, Mr. Callen’s agents 2 dropped him and comedy clubs have cancelled contracts to perform. This is illegal, wrong, and 3 without regard for due process. 4 3. By this Complaint, Mr. Callen simply seeks to preserve his ability to work and earn a 5 living. 6 PARTIES 7 4. Plaintiff Bryan Callen is an entertainer who makes his living as a film and television 8 actor, writer, podcaster, and a stand-up comic. He resides in the County of Los Angeles. 9 5. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gabriel Tigerman is an 10 individual residing in the County of Los Angeles. 11 6. UponDeadline information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that each of the fictitiously named Doe 12 Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Callen’s 13 damages as herein alleged were actually and proximately caused by their conduct. 14 7. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that at all material times, each 15 Defendant was the agent, servant, authorized representative, predecessor, successor, co-conspirator, 16 employer and/or employee of each other, and in doing the things and acts alleged in this Complaint, 17 was acting within the course and scope of said relationship(s); and further, that each Defendant has 18 authorized, approved, ratified and/or endorsed the acts of each remaining Defendant. Further, each 19 of the Defendants was a partner, or was engaged in a joint venture with one or more of the remaining 20 Defendants, and was acting within the scope and purpose of said partnership or joint venture. Each 21 Defendant has ratified each and every act of each other Cross-Defendant pertinent to said partnership 22 or joint venture. 23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 24 8. The events or occurrences giving rise to the claims alleged in the Complaint took 25 place in the County of Los Angeles. 26 9. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution and § 410.10 of the 27 Code of Civil Procedure, subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of California for 28 the County of Los Angeles. 2 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384 1 10. Pursuant to § 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure, venue is proper in the Superior 2 Court for the County of Los Angeles. 3 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 4 11. Plaintiff Bryan Callen is a well-known actor and comedian, who got his first break as 5 part of original cast of the hit late-night show, MADtv in 1995. In the years since, he has regularly 6 appeared in film and television and toured as a stand-up comic. 7 12. To perform as a stand-up comic, Plaintiff Bryan Callen contracts with various comedy 8 club venues and live theater chains across the country. The identity of these venues is public 9 knowledge because Mr. Callen publishes his tour schedule on his website, BryanCallen.com. 10 13. To procure work as a stand-up comic, Mr. Callen contracted with Creative Artists 11 Agency (“CAA”). Deadline 12 14. To procure acting roles, Mr. Callen contracted with Innovative Artists Talent and 13 Literary Agency, Inc. (“Innovative Artists”). 14 15. At all relevant times, Mr. Callen’s representation was public knowledge. Anyone, 15 including Defendant, could find his agents’ contact information at CAA and Innovative Artists on 16 numerous websites via a simple Google search. 17 16. On July 31, 2020, the Los Angeles Times published an article wherein Katherine Fiore 18 Tigerman accused Mr. Callen of raping her 21 years ago. Defendant Gabriel Tigerman is married to 19 Katherine Fiore Tigerman. 20 17. Mr. Callen never assaulted Mrs. Tigerman. All of the allegations of Mr. Callen’s 21 misconduct published in the LA Times are false. And Mr. Callen has publicly denied them. 22 18. Moreover, Mr. Callen has never been charged with nor convicted of sexual assault. 23 19. Twenty days after the publication of LA Times article, Defendant Gabriel Tigerman 24 sent Mr. Callen’s representatives a demand that they drop Mr. Callen as a client. In particular, on 25 August 20, 2020, Mr. Tigerman sent an email to CAA stating: 26 “My name is Gabriel Tigerman. I am sure you are aware of the heavily vetted rape and sexual assault allegations against your client, Bryan Callen, detailed on the front 27 page of the LA Times a few weeks ago. Four women came forward for this article. My wife, Katherine Fiore Tigerman, is one of them. Bryan Callen raped her twenty 28 years ago. I know CAA dropped Bryan’s close friend and partner, Chris D’Elia, when 3 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384 1 the LA Times reported of his sexual predation. I can only assume his representatives knew that, by continuing to represent D’Elia, they would be standing with abusers 2 and would be sending the message to victims that this behavior is okay. I am 3 writing to find out what the status is with Callen at CAA. Do you and CAA still represent this serial sexual predator? I hope the answer is no. 4 (Emphasis added). 5 20. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Gabriel Tigerman sent this email 6 or one like it to Innovative Artists on or around the same day. 7 21. As a result, one day after receiving Mr. Tigerman’s email, both CAA and Innovative 8 Artists quit representing Mr. Callen, and refused to continue to procure him acting and comedy work 9 pursuant to contract. 10 22. The loss of Mr. Callen’s representation contracts forecloses the possibility of future 11 acting and performanceDeadline jobs that only a licensed talent agency can procure on his behalf. The 12 resulting loss of future earnings to Mr. Callen is immense. 13 23. Gabriel Tigerman continues to communicate similar harassing and threatening 14 messages to other parties with whom Mr. Callen has contracted or has a business relationship. 15 24. For instance, in September 2020, Mr. Tigerman called and wrote various comedy 16 venues with whom Mr. Callen was contracted to perform in October and November, including 17 Bricktown Comedy Club in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Skyline Comedy Club in Appleton, 18 Wisconsin. Mr. Tigerman told these venues that by not cancelling their contracts with Mr. Callen, 19 they were sending the message that they support sexual abusers and do not believe victims of sexual 20 assault. 21 25. Following Mr. Tigerman’s communications, the Bricktown Comedy Club and 22 Skyline Comedy Club cancelled Mr. Callen’s contracts to perform at their venues. 23 26. In sum, Mr. Tigerman has engaged in a relentless campaign of economic interference 24 against Mr. Callen as revenge for something Mr. Callen did not do. Mr. Tigerman’s apparent 25 objective is to have Mr. Callen blacklisted, destitute, never to work again. 26 27. The direct impact has been nothing short of devastating to Mr. Callen personally and 27 financially. 28 28. Mr. Callen’s growing damages are well in excess of the jurisdictional requirement of 4 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 1901384 1 this Court. 2 29. By this Complaint, Mr. Callen seeks to halt Mr. Tigerman’s misconduct and be made 3 whole for the undue harm it has inflicted on his entertainment career. 4 CAUSE OF ACTION 5 (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations) 6 (Against All Defendants) 7 30. Plaintiff Bryan Callen refers to and incorporates by reference all of the allegations in 8 Paragraphs 1 through 29, as if fully restated herein. 9 31. There were contracts between Mr. Callen and the following entities: 10 a. Creative Arts Agency; 11 b. InnovativeDeadline Artists Talent and Literary Agency, Inc.; 12 c. Bricktown Comedy Club; and 13 d. Skyline Comedy Club. 14 32. Defendants knew of these contracts. 15 33. Defendants’ conduct prevented performance or made performance more difficult for 16 each of these contracts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stanley Mosk: a Federalist for the 1980'S Arthur J
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 12 Article 6 Number 3 Spring 1985 1-1-1985 Stanley Mosk: A Federalist for the 1980's Arthur J. Goldberg Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Arthur J. Goldberg, Stanley Mosk: A Federalist for the 1980's, 12 Hastings Const. L.Q. 395 (1985). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol12/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Stanley Mosk: A Federalist for the 1980's By ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG* Introduction The era of the Burger Court has been marked by significant erosions of the safeguards set forth in the Bill of Rights.1 A number of the Court's decisions have overturned or circumscribed important Warren Court opinions, particularly in the area of civil rights and civil liberties.2 This trend has been criticized sharply by several members of the Court who-contrary to long-standing practice-have "gone public" to air their views.3 * Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Hastings College of the Law. The author is grateful for the assistance of Meredith J. Watts, a member of the California Bar and a former editor of the Hastings ConstitutionalLaw Quarterly, in the preparation of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Recycling the Old Circuit System
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 27 Issue 4 Article 5 2-1976 Recycling the Old Circuit System Stanley Mosk Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mosk, Stanley (1976) "Recycling the Old Circuit System," South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 27 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol27/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mosk: Recycling the Old Circuit System RECYCLING THE OLD CIRCUIT SYSTEM STANLEY MOSK* I. INTRODUCTION To paraphrase Winston Churchill's characterization of de- mocracy: our judicial system is not a very good one, but it hap- pens to be the best there is. Nevertheless, on a theory that justice, like chastity, must be an absolute, courts constantly receive an abundance of censure from a wide assortment of sources. Today the criticism of the judiciary, though couched in a variety of terms, is often bottomed on a theme that appellate judges in their ivory towers at both state and federal levels, fail to comprehend the daily agonies of contemporary society as reflected in trial court proceedings. In the 1930's President Roosevelt and a liberal coalition railed against the Supreme Court for invalidating early New Deal legislation. The "nine old men," they said, were out of touch with the desperate needs of a society struggling to avoid economic disaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring / Summer 2003 Newsletter
    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Historical Society_ NEWSLETTER S PRI NG/SU MM E R 200} A Trailblazer: Reflections on the Character and r l fo und Justice Lillie they Career efJu stice Mildred Lillie tended to stay until retire­ ment. O n e of her fo rmer BY H ON. EARL JOH NSON, JR. judicial attorneys, Ann O ustad, was with her over Legal giant. Legend. Institution. 17'ailblazer. two decades before retiring. These are the words the media - and the sources Linda Beder had been with they quoted - have used to describe Presiding Justice her over sixteen years and Mildred Lillie and her record-setting fifty-five year Pamela McCallum fo r ten career as a judge and forty-four years as a Justice on the when Justice Lillie passed California Court of Appeal. Those superlatives are all away. Connie Sullivan was absolutely accurate and richly deserved. l_ _j h er judicial ass istant for I write from a different perspective, however - as a some eighteen years before retiring and O lga Hayek colleague of Justice Lillie for the entire eighteen years served in that role for over a decade before retiring, she was Presiding Justice of Division Seven. I hope to too. For the many lawyers who saw her only in the provide some sense of what it was like to work with a courtroom, Justice Lillie could be an imposing, even recognized giant, a legend, an institution, a trailblazer. intimidating figure. But within the Division she was Readers will be disappointed if they are expecting neither intimidating nor autocratic.
    [Show full text]
  • California Legal History | 2009: Vol. 4
    Volume 4: 2009 California Legal History Journal of the California Supreme Court Historical Society California Legal History Volume 4 2009 Journal of the California Supreme Court Historical Society ii California Legal History is published annually by the California Supreme Court Historical Society, a non-profit corporation dedicated to recovering, preserving, and promoting California’s legal and judicial history, with particular emphasis on the California Supreme Court. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: Membership in the Society is open to individuals at the rate of $50 or more per year, which includes the journal as a member benefit. For individual membership, please visit www.cschs.org, or contact the Society at (800) 353-7357 or 4747 North First Street, Fresno, CA 93726. Libraries may subscribe at the same rate through William S. Hein & Co. Please visit http://www.wshein.com or telephone (800) 828-7571. Back issues are available to individuals and libraries through William S. Hein & Co. at http://www.wshein.com or (800) 828-7571. Please note that issues prior to 2006 were published as California Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook. (4 vols., 1994 to 1998-1999). SUBMIssION INFORMATION: Submissions of articles and book reviews are welcome on any aspect of California legal history, broadly construed. Unsolicited manuscripts are welcome as are prior inquiries. Submissions are reviewed by independent scholarly referees. In recognition of the hybrid nature of legal history, manuscripts will be accepted in both standard legal style (Bluebook) or standard academic style (Chicago Manu- al). Citations of cases and law review articles should generally be in Bluebook style. Manuscripts should be sent by email as MS Word or WordPerfect files.
    [Show full text]
  • CA Capital Murder Cases That Are Scotus Cleared
    Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Case summaries of California capital murderers with exhausted appeals CALIFORNIA CAPITAL MURDER CASES THAT ARE “SCOTUS CLEARED” As of December 6, 2016 Name Sentence Date Crime Trial Stevie Fields 35 Cal.3d 329 (1983) 8/21/79 Los Angeles Los Angeles Albert Brown 6 Cal.4th 322 (1993) 2/22/82 Riverside Riverside Fernando Belmontes 45 Cal.3d 744 (1988) 10/5/82 San Joaquin San Joaquin Kevin Cooper 53 Cal.3d 771 (1991) 5/15/85 San Bernardino San Diego Tiequon Cox 53 Cal.3d 618 (1991) 5/7/86 Los Angeles Los Angeles Royal Hayes Stanislaus 21 Cal.4th 1211 (1999) 8/8/86 Santa Cruz (penalty retrial) Harvey Heishman 45 Cal.3d 147 (1988) 3/30/81 Alameda Alameda Michael Morales 48 Cal.3d 527 (1989) 6/14/83 San Joaquin Ventura Scott Pinholster 1 Cal.4th 865 (1992) 6/14/84 Los Angeles Los Angeles Douglas Mickey 54 Cal.3d 612 (1991) 9/23/83 Placer San Mateo Mitchell Sims 5 Cal.4th 405 (1993) 9/11/87 Los Angeles Los Angeles David Raley 2 Cal.4th 870 (1992) 5/17/88 San Mateo Santa Clara Richard Gonzales Samayoa 15 Cal.4th 795 (1997) 6/28/88 San Diego San Diego Robert Fairbank 16 Cal.4th 1223 (1997) 9/5/89 San Mateo San Mateo William Charles Payton 3 Cal.4th 1050 (1992) 3/5/82 Orange County Orange County Albert Cunningham Jr. 25 Cal.4th 926 (2001) 6/16/89 Los Angeles Los Angeles Anthony John Sully 53 Cal.3d 1195 (1991) 7/15/86 San Mateo San Mateo Ronald Lee Deere 53 Cal.3d 705 (1991) 7/18/86 Riverside Riverside Hector Juan Ayala 24 Cal.4th 243 (2000) 11/30/89 San Diego San Diego Case summaries of California capital murderers with exhausted appeals Inmate: Stevie Fields 35 Cal.3d 329 (1983) Date Sentenced: 8/21/79 | Crime and Trial: Los Angeles Stevie Fields was paroled from prison on September 13, 1978, after serving a sentence for manslaughter for bludgeoning a man to death with a barbell.
    [Show full text]
  • (213) 362-7788 Todd Cavanaugh Is a Civil Litigator and Trial Attorney with Expertise in Product Liability, Toxic Tort, and Business Litigation
    TODD A. CAVANAUGH, PARTNER Office: Los Angeles [email protected] (213) 362-7777 220 (213) 362-7788 Todd Cavanaugh is a civil litigator and trial attorney with expertise in product liability, toxic tort, and business litigation. Licensed to practice in California, Nevada, and Washington, his experience includes all aspects of litigation, from administrative proceedings to mediation to trials and appeals. For more than 15 years, he has defended the interests of manufacturers and excess insurers in cases venued in state and federal courts in more than a dozen states. In product liability litigation, Mr. Cavanaugh has defended the design, manufacture, and performance of a diverse array of products made by some of the world's largest manufacturers. These products include automobiles, construction equipment, tires, automotive friction products, industrial machinery, and power generators. He also coordinated and executed a nationwide product liability resolution program for a major automobile manufacturer. Mr. Cavanaugh has achieved Martindale-Hubbell's highest AV rating, and has been recognized by Law & Politics as a 2014–2018 Southern California Super Lawyer. He has lectured on topics including jury selection, principles of contribution and indemnity, and strategies for overcoming the threat of joint liability. His publications include “Tumble v. Cascade Bicycle Corp.: A Hypothetical Case Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts,” published in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Mr. Cavanaugh was born and raised in Minnesota, and earned a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin in 1990. In 1995, he graduated summa cum laude from William Mitchell College of Law in St.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESS RELEASE Release Date: December 21, 2020 SENATE CONFIRMS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA On December 20, 2020, the United States Senate confirmed President Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha to serve as a federal district judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Aenlle-Rocha will preside over matters in Los Angeles in the Court’s Western Division. Judge Aenlle-Rocha has served as a Superior Court Judge for Los Angeles County since his appointment by Governor Jerry Brown in 2017. Judge Aenlle-Rocha has presided over criminal and civil matters, including over 50 trials. He most recently presided over a civil independent calendar court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. He also served on several Court Committees— Ethics, Diversity, Community Outreach, and Civil and Small Claims – and on the California Judges Association Civil Law Committee. Prior to his appointment as a Superior Court Judge, from 2005 to 2017, Judge Aenlle-Rocha worked as a partner at White & Case LLP where he focused on business litigation and white-collar criminal defense. Judge Aenlle-Rocha’s civil litigation practice included a variety of cases in state and federal courts. As part of his white-collar practice, Judge Aenlle-Rocha conducted internal investigations on behalf of corporate clients, provided anti-corruption compliance counsel to companies, and represented individuals and companies who were witnesses, subjects, targets, or defendants in criminal and civil enforcement proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the State of California
    No. S______ (Court of Appeal No. C087071) (Sacramento County Super. Ct. No. JCCP 4853) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent, ABAAN ABU-SHUMAYS et al., Real Parties in Interest . From an Order Summarily Denying a Petition for a Writ of Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Appropriate Relief, by the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District Case No. C087071 PETITION FOR REVIEW KENNETH R. CHIATE (S.B. No. 039554) *KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN (S.B. No. 242261) KRISTEN BIRD (S.B. No. 192863) DANIEL H. BROMBERG (S.B. No. 242659) JEFFREY N. BOOZELL (S.B. No. 199507) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner Pacific Gas and Electric Company TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. 4 ISSUE PRESENTED .......................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights from a New Biography of Justice Stanley Mosk by Jacqueline R
    California Supreme Court Historical Society newsletter · s p r i n g / summer 2014 A Life in The LAw The Longest-Serving Justice Highlights from a New Biography of Justice Stanley Mosk By Jacqueline R. Braitman and Gerald F. Uelmen* undreds of mourners came to Los Angeles’ future allies. With rare exceptions, Mosk maintained majestic Wilshire Boulevard Temple in June of cordial relations with political opponents throughout H2001. The massive, Byzantine-style structure his lengthy career. and its hundred-foot-wide dome tower over the bustling On one of his final days in office, Olson called Mosk mid-city corridor leading to the downtown hub of finan- into his office and told him to prepare commissions to cial and corporate skyscrapers. Built in 1929, the historic appoint Harold Jeffries, Harold Landreth, and Dwight synagogue symbolizes the burgeoning pre–Depression Stephenson to the Superior Court, and Eugene Fay and prominence and wealth of the region’s Mosk himself to the Municipal Court. Jewish Reform congregants, includ- Mosk thanked the governor profusely. ing Hollywood moguls and business The commissions were prepared and leaders. Filing into the rows of seats in the governor signed them, but by then the cavernous sanctuary were two gen- it was too late to file them. The secre- erations of movers and shakers of post- tary of state’s office was closed, so Mosk World War II California politics, who locked the commissions in his desk and helped to shape the course of history. went home, intending to file them early Sitting among less recognizable faces the next morning.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral History Interview with Honorable Stanley Mosk
    California State Archives State Government Oral History Program Oral History Interview with HONORABLE STANLEY MOSK Justice of the California Supreme Court, 1964-present February 18, March 11, April 2, May 27, July 22, 1998 San Francisco, California By Germaine LaBerge Regional Oral History Office University of California, Berkeley RESTRICTIONS ON THIS INTERVIEW None. LITERARY RIGHTS AND QUOTATIONS This manuscript is hereby made available for research purposes only. No part of this manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the California State Archivist or the Regional Oral History Office, University of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to: California State Archives 1020 0 Street, Room 130 Sacramento, California 95814 or Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California Berkeley, California 94720 The request should include information of the specific passages and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Honorable Stanley Mosk Oral History Interview, Conducted 1998 by Germaine LaBerge, Regional Oral History Office, University of California at Berkeley, for the California State Archives State Government Oral History Program. INTERVIEW HISTORY InterviewerlEditor: Germaine LaBerge Editor, University of California at Berkeley State Archives State Government Oral History Program B.A. Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York (History) M.A. Mary Grove College, Detroit, Michigan (Education) Member (inactive), California State Bar Interview Time and Place: February 18, 1998, Session of one and a half hours. March 11, 1998, Session of one and a half hours. April 2, 1998, Session of one hour. May 27, 1998, Session of one hour.
    [Show full text]
  • Lasc Announces Small Claims Cases to Be Heard in Every Judicial District
    Los Angeles Superior Court – Public Information Office 111 N. Hill Street, Room 107, Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected] www.lacourt.org NOTICE TO PUBLIC October 13, 2017 LASC ANNOUNCES SMALL CLAIMS CASES TO BE HEARD IN EVERY JUDICIAL DISTRICT Effective Oct. 10, 2017, the Los Angeles Superior Court will expand small claims operations from six to eleven courthouses, as follows: • Chatsworth Courthouse, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth 91311 (New) • Compton Courthouse, 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton 90220 (New) • Governor George Deukmejian (Long Beach) Courthouse, 275 Magnolia, Long Beach 90802 (New) • Pasadena Courthouse, 300 East Walnut, Pasadena, 91101 (New) (Effective Oct. 10, 2017, small claims cases will no longer be heard at the Alhambra Courthouse.) • Santa Monica Courthouse, 1725 Main St., Santa Monica, 90401 (New) • West Covina Courthouse, 1427 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, 91790 (New) • Downey Courthouse, 7500 East Imperial Highway, Downey, 90242 • Inglewood Courthouse, One Regent Street, Inglewood, 90301 • Michael D. Antonovich (Antelope Valley) Courthouse, 42011 Fourth Street West, Lancaster, 93534 • Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, 90012 • Van Nuys East Courthouse, 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, 91401 LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(2) specifies small claims cases must be filed in the courthouse serving the location and proper United States Postal Service zip code of the property in dispute using the Zip Code Table for Small Claims cases. The zip code table is available on the Court’s website at: http://www.lacourt.org/filinglocatornet/ui/filingsearch.aspx, on the home page and on the Small Claims and Civil Division pages. A copy of the Zip Code Table for Small Claims cases will also be available in every courthouse to assist parties in determining the new filing locations.
    [Show full text]
  • The California Recall History Is a Chronological Listing of Every
    Complete List of Recall Attempts This is a chronological listing of every attempted recall of an elected state official in California. For the purposes of this history, a recall attempt is defined as a Notice of Intention to recall an official that is filed with the Secretary of State’s Office. 1913 Senator Marshall Black, 28th Senate District (Santa Clara County) Qualified for the ballot, recall succeeded Vote percentages not available Herbert C. Jones elected successor Senator Edwin E. Grant, 19th Senate District (San Francisco County) Failed to qualify for the ballot 1914 Senator Edwin E. Grant, 19th Senate District (San Francisco County) Qualified for the ballot, recall succeeded Vote percentages not available Edwin I. Wolfe elected successor Senator James C. Owens, 9th Senate District (Marin and Contra Costa counties) Qualified for the ballot, officer retained 1916 Assemblyman Frank Finley Merriam Failed to qualify for the ballot 1939 Governor Culbert L. Olson Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Citizens Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot 1940 Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot 1960 Governor Edmund G. Brown Filed by Roderick J. Wilson Failed to qualify for the ballot 1 Complete List of Recall Attempts 1965 Assemblyman William F. Stanton, 25th Assembly District (Santa Clara County) Filed by Jerome J. Ducote Failed to qualify for the ballot Assemblyman John Burton, 20th Assembly District (San Francisco County) Filed by John Carney Failed to qualify for the ballot Assemblyman Willie L.
    [Show full text]