This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 09/27/2022 at 04:14:17 (UTC).

Rosete v. County of San Diego et al.

Case Summary

On 05/04/2022 Rosete filed an Other lawsuit against County of San Diego. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Bacal, Katherine. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***0387

  • Filing Date:

    05/04/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Bacal, Katherine

 

Party Details

Appellant and Plaintiff

Ernesto Rosete

San Diego, CA 92105

Defendants and Respondents

County of San Diego

Summer Stephan

The Superior Court of San Diego County

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

Juan Fernando Kish

Attorney at San Diego Office of County Counsel

1600 Pacific Hwy Rm 355

San Diego, CA 92101-2437

Matthew Patrick O'Sullivan

Attorney at Office of County Counsel

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 355

San Diego, CA 92101

Office Of The District Attorney

Appellate Division P. O. Box X-1011

San Diego, CA 92112

Susanne C. Koski

Attorney at San Diego Superior Court - Director of Legal Services

P.O. Box 120128

San Diego, CA 92112

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/15/2022
  • HearingDescription: Remittitur issued.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Other involuntary dismissal; Disposition Type: Final

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDescription: Dismissal order filed.; Notes: On June 9, 2022, the superior court notified appellant that he was in default for failure to file a proof of service for his notice designating the record on appeal. Appellant failed to clear the default. On August 2, 2022, this court ordered appellant to file a proof of service for his record designation within five days and advised him that failure to file a proof of service could result in dismissal of the appeal. Appellant did not file a proof of service within the specified time period. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.140.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2022
  • DocketDescription: Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8.140(a)(1).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated:; Notes: 8/9/22. POS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: On June 9, 2022, the superior court notified appellant that he was in default for failure to file a proof of service for his notice designating the record on appeal. Appellant has failed to clear the default. Within 5 days of the date of this order, appellant must file a proof of service for his notice designating the record on appeal. The proof of service shall be filed with the Clerk of the San Diego County Superior Court. Failure to file a proof of service within the specified time period may result in dismissal of the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.140.) The Clerk of the San Diego County Superior Court is directed to accept appellant's proof of service, provided the proof of service is presented within 5 days from the date of this order.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2022
  • DocketDescription: Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8.140(a)(1).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2022
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to:; Notes: Due to appellant Ernesto Rosete's improper, excessive, and repetitive telephone communications with the Clerk's Office of this court, which communications interfere with the operations of the Clerk's Office, the court requests that all future communications by appellant Ernesto Rosete be in writing, submitted through the court's electronic filing system, by mail or in person. Unless the communication is required by statute or court rule to remain confidential, the writing should be served on all parties and accompanied by a valid proof of service. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 8.25.)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2022
  • DocketDescription: Dkt Due; Default Ltr already sent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated:; Notes: 6/3/22. Specificity & POS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated:; Notes: 5/27/22. Specificity and POS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2022
  • DocketDescription: Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:; Notes: 5/27/22. Appendix, no mention of Reporter's

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2022
  • DocketDescription: Default notice sent; no case information statement filed, or statement incomplete.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2022
  • DocketDescription: Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated:; Notes: 5/24/22

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order waiving filing fee.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2022
  • DocketDescription: Application for waiver of filing fee filed.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2022
  • DocketDescription: Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2022
  • DocketDescription: Appellate package sent.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2022
  • DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Filed May 4, 2022 by ERNESTO ROSETE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: San Diego County Superior Court - Main; County: San Diego; Trial Court Case Number: 37-2021-00053146-CU-CR-CTL; Trial Court Judge: Bacal, Katherine

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO is a litigant

Latest cases where The Superior Court of San Diego County is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer O'Sullivan, Matthew P.