Balmuccino

Balmuccino v. Starbucks Corp. CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 2022B308344California2,912 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 8/24/22 Balmuccino v. Starbucks Corp. CA2/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

BALMUCCINO, LLC B308344

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV37444) v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed.

Martorell Law, Eduardo Martorell and JoAnn Victor for Plaintiff and Appellant.

K & L Gates, Paul W. Sweeney, Jr., Kevin S. Asfor and Kate G. Hummel for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________ Balmuccino, LLC appeals from an order granting Starbucks Corp.’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Starbucks’s ubiquitous retail…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.