First Appellate District - Division 1 Court Records

DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FILED BY:; NOTES: JOSETTE JOHNSON APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

DESCRIPTION: ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVER NOTICE SENT.

DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.

DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.

DESCRIPTION: RECORD ON APPEAL FILED.

DESCRIPTION: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - COURT REPORTER OR ATTY.

DESCRIPTION: RESPONDENT'S BRIEF.; NOTES: STIPULATED ON 3/7/22

DESCRIPTION: RESPONDENT'S BRIEF.

DESCRIPTION: RECORD RETURNED FROM SUPREME COURT.

DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN SUPREME COURT.; NOTES: THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IS GRANTED. THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED.

DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF.

DESCRIPTION: GRANTED - EXTENSION OF TIME.; NOTES: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF. DUE ON 06/01/2022 BY 30 DAY(S)

DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF.

DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF.

DESCRIPTION: RECORD RETURNED FROM SUPREME COURT.

DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN SUPREME COURT.

DESCRIPTION: REPLACE APPOINTED COUNSEL. (RE: DFC NOTICE)

DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF.; NOTES: 30 DAYS AFTER AUGMENT IS FILED

DESCRIPTION: CAUSE ARGUED AND SUBMITTED.; NOTES: DAVID BALTER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT AMELIA BURROUGHS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

DESCRIPTION: EMAIL SENT TO:; NOTES: EMAIL WITH 4/28/22 TEST RUN INFO

DESCRIPTION: CAUSE ARGUED AND SUBMITTED.; NOTES: DAVID BALTER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT AMELIA BURROUGHS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

DESCRIPTION: EMAIL SENT TO:; NOTES: EMAIL WITH 4/28/22 TEST RUN INFO

DESCRIPTION: RESPONDENT'S BRIEF.

DESCRIPTION: GRANTED - EXTENSION OF TIME.; NOTES: RESPONDENT'S BRIEF. DUE ON 06/13/2022 BY 32 DAY(S)

DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.

DESCRIPTION: OTHER INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL; DISPOSITION TYPE: FINAL BY THE COURT: APPELLANT E.F.'S ATTORNEY FILED A NO ISSUES STATEMENT WITH THIS COURT ON MARCH 28, 2022, DECLARING THAT, AFTER REVIEWING THE ENTIRE RECORD, COUNSEL HAS FOUND NO ARGUABLE ISSUES TO RAISE ON APPEAL. APPELLANT E.F. HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO OUR LETTER OF MARCH 28, 2022, GIVING HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE ANY ISSUES SHE FEELS SHOULD BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. (IN RE PHOENIX H. (2009) 47 CAL.4TH 835, 846; IN RE SADE C. (1996) 13 CAL.4TH 952, 994.)

DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF.; NOTES: *** 15 DAYS AFTER OMISSION IS FILED ******FURTHER EXTENSIONS NOT CONTEMPLATED.***

DESCRIPTION: GRANTED - EXTENSION OF TIME.; NOTES: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF. DUE ON 06/16/2022 BY 31 DAY(S)

DESCRIPTION: OTHER INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL; DISPOSITION TYPE: FINAL BY THE COURT: IN THAT NEITHER COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER NOR PETITIONER ACTING IN PROPRIA PERSONA FILED A PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED (CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.452(C)(L)), THE ABOVE-ENTITLED ACTION IS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED. (KARL S. V. SUPERIOR COURT (1995) 34 CAL.APP.4TH 1397, 1404.)

DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.

DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF.

DESCRIPTION: STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME FILED TO:; NOTES: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF. DUE ON 05/20/2022 BY 59 DAY(S) AOB STIPULATED TO MAY 20, 2022

DESCRIPTION: 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.)

DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.

DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.

DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.

DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.

DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.

DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.

DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.