Pote

Pote v. Handy Technologies CA2/7

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 17, 2022B302770ACalifornia4,480 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 10/17/22 Pote v. Handy Technologies CA2/7 Opinion after vacating opinion filed on 8/16/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

PATRICK POTE, B302770

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC723965) v.

HANDY TECHNOLOGIES,

INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, C. Edward Simpson, Judge. Affirmed. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Robert H. Platt, Andrew L. Satenberg and Benjamin G. Shatz for Defendant and Appellant. Gibbs Law Group, Steven M. Tindall and Amanda M. Karl for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________________________ Handy Technologies, Inc. (Handy) appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration on an…

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.