Search online court records for free in First Appellate District - Division 4 Court by case number, case name, party, attorney, judge, docket entry, and more. Filter cases further by date of filing, case type, party type, party representation, and more.
With UniCourt, you can access cases online in First Appellate District - Division 4, view case summary, check case status, download court documents, as well as track cases and get alerts on new case updates and access California Courts of Appeal - First Appellate District - Division 4 cases with Legal Data APIs. UniCourt also allows you to lookup court cases and find latest docket information for all courthouses in California Courts of Appeal, California.
DOCKET
11/19/2019
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/19/2019
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/09/2012
DESCRIPTION: CHANGE OF CONTACT INFORMATION FILED FOR:; NOTES: PETITIONER JOHANNA KLEPPE. NEW ADDRESS: 459 FULTON STREET, SUITE 302, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
[-] Read LessDOCKET
02/17/2011
DESCRIPTION: SHIPPED TO STATE RETENTION CENTER, BOX # / LIST #:; NOTES: L311
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/24/2022
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/24/2022
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/25/2021
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/25/2021
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessHEARING
12/23/2022
DESCRIPTION: REPLACE APPOINTED COUNSEL. (RE: DFC NOTICE)
[-] Read LessHEARING
12/23/2022
DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF.; NOTES: WAS 7.27.22
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/04/2022
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/04/2022
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/18/2022
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/18/2022
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/11/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN SUPREME COURT.; NOTES: REVIEW & STAY DENIED;
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/18/2021
DESCRIPTION: SERVICE COPY OF PETITION FOR REVIEW RECEIVED.
[-] Read LessHEARING
02/10/2022
DESCRIPTION: REPLACE APPOINTED COUNSEL. (RE: DFC NOTICE)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
01/11/2022
DESCRIPTION: DEFAULT SENT TO COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL.; NOTES: DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT: BRANDON RIO SHERMAN
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/10/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION SUMMARILY DENIED BY ORDER; DISPOSITION TYPE: FINAL
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/10/2021
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessHEARING
07/22/2021
DESCRIPTION: RECORD ON APPEAL FILED.
[-] Read LessHEARING
07/22/2021
DESCRIPTION: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - COURT REPORTER OR ATTY.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/03/2022
DESCRIPTION: ORDER FILED.; NOTES: THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT CITE BARAL V. SCHNITT (2016) 1 CAL.5TH 376 IN THEIR RESPONDING BRIEF, AND, UNTIL THEIR PETITION FOR REHEARING, DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE ALLEGATION-BY-ALLEGATION PARSING REQUIRED BY BARAL APPLIES IN THIS CASE. WITH THAT IN MIND, THE COURT REQUESTS THAT THE PARTIES ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER ARGUMENTS THEY WISH TO MAKE: 1. THE BARAL COURT APPEARS TO DIRECT ITS HOLDING TO WHAT IT DESCRIBES AS ? ?THE MIXED CAUSE OF ACTION? PROBLEM.? (BARAL, SUPRA, 1 CAL.5TH AT P. 394; ID. AT P. 385 [DESCRIBING THE QUESTION IT IS ADDRESSING AT STEP TWO OF THE ANTI-SLAPP ANALYSIS AS, ?WHAT SHOWING IS REQUIRED OF A PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO A PLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION THAT INCLUDES ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED ACTIVITY??].) DOES BARAL APPLY WHEN THE PARTIES DO NOT DISPUTE THAT ALL ACTIVITIES ON WHICH A CHALLENGED CAUSE OF ACTION RESTS ARE PROTECTED (I.E., THE COURT IS NOT ADDRESSING A ?MIXED CAUSE OF ACTION?)? 2. BARAL REQUIRES COURTS TO ?ANALYZE EACH CLAIM FOR RELIEF?EACH ACT OR SET OF ACTS SUPPLYING A BASIS FOR RELIEF, OF WHICH THERE MAY BE SEVERAL IN A SINGLE PLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION?TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTS ARE PROTECTED AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE CLAIM THEY GIVE RISE TO HAS THE REQUISITE DEGREE OF MERIT TO SURVIVE THE MOTION.? (BONNI V. ST. JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM (2021) 11 CAL.5TH 995, 1010.) AS APPLIED IN BONNI AND OTHER CASES (SEE WILSON V. CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. (2019) 7 CAL.5TH 871, 884; PARK V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (2017) 2 CAL.5TH 1057, 1062?1063), THIS ANALYSIS APPEARS TO FOCUS ON SPECIFIC ?ACTS,? ?ACTIVITIES? OR ?CONDUCT.? DOES THE ALLEGATION-BY-ALLEGATION PARSING REQUIRED BY BARAL APPLY TO ALLEGED LEGAL THEORIES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH THOSE THEORIES ARE BASED? 3. ?IF A CAUSE OF ACTION CONTAINS MULTIPLE CLAIMS AND A MOVING PARTY FAILS TO IDENTIFY HOW THE SPEECH OR CONDUCT UNDERLYING SOME OF THOSE CLAIMS IS PROTECTED ACTIVITY, IT WILL NOT CARRY ITS FIRST-STEP BURDEN AS TO THOSE CLAIMS.? (BONNI, SUPRA, 11 CAL.5TH AT P. 1011.) DID RESPONDENTS CARRY THEIR BURDEN OF IDENTIFYING PARTICULAR ALLEGATIONS OF PROTECTED ?SPEECH OR CONDUCT UNDERLYING? WHAT THEY DESCRIBE AS THE ?DERIVATIVE? CLAIMS OF FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) IN APPELLANT?S ROSENTHAL ACT CAUSE OF ACTION? 4. BARAL HOLDS THAT, AT THE END OF THE ALLEGATION-BY-ALLEGATION PARSING PROCEDURE IT OUTLINES, ?[A]LLEGATIONS OF PROTECTED ACTIVITY SUPPORTING THE STRICKEN CLAIM ARE ELIMINATED FROM THE COMPLAINT, UNLESS THEY ALSO SUPPORT A DISTINCT CLAIM ON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAS SHOWN A PROBABILITY OF PREVAILING.? (BARAL, SUPRA, 1 CAL.5TH AT P. 396.) WITHOUT REARGUING THE CONTENTIONS THE COURT HAS REJECTED IN PART II.B. OF ITS OCTOBER 7, 2022 OPINION, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING WHAT RESPONDENTS DESCRIBE AS APPELLANT?S ?DERIVATIVE? CLAIMS OF LIABILITY UNDER THE FDCPA DO NOT ALSO SUPPORT A ?DISTINCT CLAIM ON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAS SHOWN A PROBABILITY OF PREVAILING? (IBID.). 5. EVEN IF, HAD APPELLANT ALLEGED AS INDEPENDENT BASES FOR RELIEF WHAT RESPONDENTS DESCRIBE AS ?DERIVATIVE? CLAIMS OF LIABILITY UNDER THE FDCPA IN APPELLANT?S ROSENTHAL ACT CAUSE OF ACTION, THOSE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRICKEN, MAY THESE CLAIMS BE PERMITTED TO STAND AS ?INCIDENTAL BACKGROUND? ALLEGATIONS THAT APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO RELY UPON AT THE PLEADING STAGE FOR ?CONTEXT? (BONNI, SUPRA, 11 CAL.5TH AT P. 1012) OR ?EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT? (PARK, SUPRA, 2 CAL.5TH AT P. 1064)?
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/26/2022
DESCRIPTION: ORDER GRANTING REHEARING PETITION FILED.; NOTES: UPON REVIEW OF ?RESPONDENTS? PETITION FOR REHEARING,? FILED ON OCTOBER 24, 2022, THE COURT GRANTS THE PETITION. THE ISSUES RAISED IN APPELLANT?S COUNSEL?S LETTER TO THE COURT, DATED OCTOBER 10, 2022, ARE, THEREFORE, MOOT. APPELLANT SHALL WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ADDRESSING THE MATTERS RAISED IN RESPONDENTS? PETITION. RESPONDENTS MAY WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE FILING OF APPELLANT?S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILE A RESPONSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF. THE ADDITIONAL TIME PERIOD FOR BRIEFING ALLOWED BY CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.220(A) SHALL NOT APPLY. NO FURTHER BRIEFING SHALL BE ALLOWED AND ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL NOT BE HELD, EXCEPT AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY FUTURE ORDER OF THIS COURT. AN OPINION ON REHEARING SHALL ISSUE IN DUE COURSE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/22/2017
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/22/2017
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/30/2022
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/30/2022
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/03/2022
DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FILED BY:; NOTES: BY ATTORNEY JOSETTE JOHNSON FOR RESPONDENT
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/03/2022
DESCRIPTION: ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVER NOTICE SENT.
[-] Read LessHEARING
11/01/2021
DESCRIPTION: APPELLANT'S APPENDIX AND OPENING BRIEF FILED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/15/2021
DESCRIPTION: GRANTED - EXTENSION OF TIME.; NOTES: APPELLANT'S APPENDIX AND OPENING BRIEF FILED. DUE ON 11/01/2021 BY 14 DAY(S)
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/16/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION SUMMARILY DENIED BY ORDER; DISPOSITION TYPE: FINAL THE COURT*: THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE IS DENIED. THE REQUEST FOR A STAY IS DENIED. * POLLAK, P.J., STREETER, J., AND TUCHER, J.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/16/2021
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/16/2022
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/13/2022
DESCRIPTION: REMITTITUR ISSUED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/25/2014
DESCRIPTION: SHIPPED TO STATE RETENTION CENTER, BOX # / LIST #:; NOTES: L344
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/19/2013
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
08/16/2021
DESCRIPTION: VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL; DISPOSITION TYPE: FINAL BY THE COURT: IN LIGHT OF APPELLANT'S "REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL" FILED ON AUGUST 5, 2021, THIS APPEAL, WHICH WAS FILED ON JUNE 10, 2021, IS HEREBY DISMISSED. THE CLERK OF THIS COURT IS DIRECTED TO CONCURRENTLY FILE THIS ORDER AND ISSUE THE REMITTITUR. (CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.272(C)(1).) RESPONDENT SHALL RECOVER COSTS. (CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.278(A)(2).)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/16/2021
DESCRIPTION: CASE COMPLETE.
[-] Read LessFirst Appellate District - Division 4
(California Courts of Appeal, California)
350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA