This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 01/20/2022 at 18:41:52 (UTC).

Lefiti et al. v. Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco

Case Summary

On 09/27/2021 Lefiti filed an Other lawsuit against Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is East, Rochelle. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***3548

  • Filing Date:

    09/27/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

East, Rochelle

 

Party Details

Petitioners

Danielle Lefiti

DIONICIO DOMINGO

AIDAN DOMINGO

THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL LEFITI

SANDY LIM

ELIZABETH LOUIE

MELANIE LOUIE

THE ESTATE OF BENSON LOUIE

EDGAR PEREZ

MARILYN CORNEJO

XIAO CHU CHEN

KRYSTAL YEUNG

JOANDREI ARQUIZA

AUNG BO

MARVIN CALDERON

MARGARITA LAGUAN

SHAUN KOCH

MARIANELLA DUBON-KOCH

EVAN NGUYEN

PETER TRAN

41 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Alicia Marie Zimmerman

Attorney at SINGLETON SCHREIBER MCKENZIE & SCOTT LLP

450 A St., 5Th Fl.

San Diego, CA 92101

Joshua David White

Attorney at Altair Law LLP

465 California Street 5Th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Benjamin Israel Siminou

Attorney at Singleton Schreiber McKenzie & Scott, LLP

450 A St., 5Th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101

John Kevin Morrison

Attorney at Altair Law LLP

465 California Street, 5Th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Other Attorneys

Fulvio Antonio Picerno

Attorney at Law Office of Fulvio A. Picerno

39899 Balentine Dr Ste 200

Newark, CA 94560

Shawn A. Toliver

Attorney at LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

2185 N. California Blvd,, Suite 300

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Dana Alden Fox

Attorney at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

2185 North California Blvd., Ste. 300

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/12/2021
  • DispositionDescription: Petition summarily denied by order; Disposition Type: Final BY THE COURT*: The petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition and request for stay are denied. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2) ["Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action . . . . The plaintiff . . . shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action . . . ."]; Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (a) ["In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of . . . malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant."], italics added; Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158 ["In reviewing a summary judgment or summary adjudication ruling on a claim for punitive damages, we view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive clear and convincing evidentiary burden."]; see Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005 ["[W]hen presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence, the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by this standard of proof."].) Although not the sole reasons for denying the petition, we observe that the petition fails to mention that petitioners' burden of proof on the issue of malice is clear and convincing evidence. (Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (a).) The burden of proof in the lower court affects our standard of appellate review (Butte Fire Cases, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 1158), and "[f]ailure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of lack of merit." (Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465.) Although respondent superior court made explicit reference to petitioners' burden of proof, petitioners do not frame their arguments with reference to that burden. (See Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1388 ["Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review."].) We further observe that proof of "despicable conduct" is required for a showing of malice. (Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (c)(1) [" 'Malice' means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others."], italics added.) Despite this plain statutory requirement, the petition relegates its discussion of "despicable conduct" to a single footnote. (Petn., p. 46, fn. 3.) We may decline to consider an argument raised only in a footnote. (See Ramos v. Superior Court (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1069.) If petitioners claim there is a triable issue of fact as to the despicable nature of real party in interest's conduct, it is incumbent upon them to develop the argument and to identify the evidence showing the existence of that triable issue. (See Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLP (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590 ["In reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, 'de novo review does not obligate us to cull the record for the benefit of the appellant in order to attempt to uncover the requisite triable issues. As with an appeal from any judgment, it is the appellant's responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error and, therefore, to point out the triable issues the appellant claims are present by citation to the record and any supporting authority.' "]; Kunde v. Seiler (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 518, 535, fn. 12 ["In an undeveloped footnote, Kunde refers to the California Constitution's free speech clause as another basis for his argument. (Cal. Const., art. I, 2, subd. (a).) However, because the reference to the state Constitution is undeveloped, without reliance on case law or specific argument, we will not consider it."].) * Before Banke, Acting P.J., & Sanchez, J. (Humes, P.J., having recused himself, took no part in the decision of this case.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT*:The petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition and request for stay are denied. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (p)(2) ["Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action . . . . The plaintiff . . . shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action . . . ."]; Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (a) ["In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of . . . malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant."], italics added; Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158 ["In reviewing a summary judgment or summary adjudication ruling on a claim for punitive damages, we view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive clear and convincing evidentiary burden."]; see Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005 ["[W]hen presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence, the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by this standard of proof."].)Although not the sole reasons for denying the petition, we observe that the petition fails to mention that petitioners' burden of proof on the issue of malice is clear and convincing evidence. (Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (a).) The burden of proof in the lower court affects our standard of appellate review (Butte Fire Cases, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 1158), and "[f]ailure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of lack of merit." (Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465.) Although respondent superior court made explicit reference to petitioners' burden of proof, petitioners do not frame their arguments with reference to that burden. (See Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1388 ["Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review."].)We further observe that proof of "despicable conduct" is required for a showing of malice. (Civ. Code, 3294, subd. (c)(1) [" 'Malice' means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others."], italics added.) Despite this plain statutory requirement, the petition relegates its discussion of "despicable conduct" to a single footnote. (Petn., p. 46, fn. 3.) We may decline to consider an argument raised only in a footnote. (See Ramos v. Superior Court (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1069.) If petitioners claim there is a triable issue of fact as to the despicable nature of real party in interest's conduct, it is incumbent upon them to develop the argument and to identify the evidence showing the existence of that triable issue. (See Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLP (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590 ["In reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, 'de novo review does not obligate us to cull the record for the benefit of the appellant in order to attempt to uncover the requisite triable issues. As with an appeal from any judgment, it is the appellant's responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error and, therefore, to point out the triable issues the appellant claims are present by citationto the record and any supporting authority.' "]; Kunde v. Seiler (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 518, 535, fn. 12 ["In an undeveloped footnote, Kunde refers to the California Constitution's free speech clause as another basis for his argument. (Cal. Const., art. I, 2, subd. (a).) However, because the reference to the state Constitution is undeveloped, without reliance on case law or specific argument, we will not consider it."].) * Before Banke, Acting P.J., & Sanchez, J. (Humes, P.J., having recused himself, took no part in the decision of this case.)*Superior court also noticed via email.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketDescription: Reply filed to:; Notes: Informal reply in support of writ petition in Lefiti el al. v. Superior Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketDescription: Opposition filed.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketDescription: Opposition requested.; Notes: Palma notice given.Parties served via email.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: paid through Truefiling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 8 of 8; Ex. U-V; Pg. 4931-5057] May Not Be Examined Without Court Order Contains Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 7 of 8; Ex. P (cont.), Q, T; Pg. 4573-4930] May Not Be Examined Without Court Order Contains Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 6 of 8; Ex. P; Ex. 3954 - 4572] May Not Be Examined Without Court Order Contains Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 5 of 8; Ex. F, G, N; Pg. 3794-3953] May Not Be Examined Without Court Order Contains Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 4 of 8; Ex. B,C, E; Pg. 2681-3793] May Not Be Examined Without Court Order Contains Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 3 of 8; Ex. AA-AH; Pg. 2594-2679] Public: Redacts Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 2 of 8; Ex. M-Z; Pg. 1388-2593] Public: Redacts Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: [Vol. 1 of 8; Ex. A-L; Pg. 1 - 1387] Public: Redacts Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Petition for Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition or Other Appropriate Relief *STAY REQUESTED* Jury Trial: October 12, 2021 May Not Be Examined Without Court Order. Contains Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Petition for Writ of Mandate and/or Prohibition or Other Appropriate Relief *STAY REQUESTED* Jury Trial: October 12, 2021 Public: Redacts Material from Conditionally Sealed Record

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketTrial Court Name: San Francisco County Superior Court - Main; County: San Francisco; Trial Court Case Number: CGC17559883; Trial Court Judge: East, Rochelle

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer PICERNO, FULVIO A

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TOLIVER, SHAWN A.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FOX DANA ALDEN ESQ.