KENNETH ELLIOT - 412i-419 Plans - Blogger
419plans.blogspot.com/.../412i-419-plans-kenneth-elliot-sea-nine.html
Lance Wallach +1'd this
RAMESH SARVA - 412i-419 Plans - Blogger
419plans.blogspot.com/2014/.../412i-419-plans-ramesh-sarva-sarva_7.ht...
KENNETH ELLIOT - 412i-419 Plans - Blogger
419plans.blogspot.com/.../412i-419-plans-kenneth-elliot-sea-nine_12.ht...
412i-419 Plans: KENNETH ELLIOT: Sea Nine VEBA Important
419plans.blogspot.com/.../kenneth-elliot-sea-nine-veba-important.html
412i-419 Plans: KENNETH ELLIOT: Sea Nine VEBA Important
419plans.blogspot.com/.../kenneth-elliot-sea-nine-veba-important_12.ht...
PONCHAK v. I.P.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.
ReplyDeleteEmail | Print | Comments (0)
B210605.
TERRANCE PONCHAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. I.P.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al, Defendants and Respondents.
Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.
February 11, 2010.
View Case Cited Cases Citing Case
Law Office of Terrance Ponchak, and Terrance Ponchak on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Roy G. Weatherup, Joseph Campo and Caroline E. Chan, for Defendant and Respondent Lane Harrison.
Law Offices of Timothy T. Tierney, and Timothy T. Tierney, for Defendants and Respondents Lalat Pattanaik, I.P.S. Enterprises, Inc., and Sea Nine Associates.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Adrienne Publicover and Dennis J. Rhodes, for Defendant and Respondent AIG American General Life Insurance Company.
VanEtten Suzumoto & Sipprelle, and David B. VanEtten, for Defendant and Respondent Capital Trust Company of Delaware.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
JOHNSON, J.
Plaintiff Terrance Ponchak appeals from the judgment dismissing this action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrers to his third amended complaint. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend on the ground that Ponchak failed to establish a contract had been formed, and his ability to state the other claims rested on the existence of a viable contract. We find no error, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
PONCHAK v. I.P.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.
ReplyDeleteEmail | Print | Comments (0)
B210605.
TERRANCE PONCHAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. I.P.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al, Defendants and Respondents.
Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.
February 11, 2010.
View Case Cited Cases Citing Case
Law Office of Terrance Ponchak, and Terrance Ponchak on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Roy G. Weatherup, Joseph Campo and Caroline E. Chan, for Defendant and Respondent Lane Harrison.
Law Offices of Timothy T. Tierney, and Timothy T. Tierney, for Defendants and Respondents Lalat Pattanaik, I.P.S. Enterprises, Inc., and Sea Nine Associates.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Adrienne Publicover and Dennis J. Rhodes, for Defendant and Respondent AIG American General Life Insurance Company.
VanEtten Suzumoto & Sipprelle, and David B. VanEtten, for Defendant and Respondent Capital Trust Company of Delaware.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
JOHNSON, J.
Plaintiff Terrance Ponchak appeals from the judgment dismissing this action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrers to his third amended complaint. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend on the ground that Ponchak failed to establish a contract had been formed, and his ability to state the other claims rested on the existence of a viable contract. We find no error, and affirm.
BACKGROUND