Docket (Register of Actions)
Chaker v. San Diego Superior Court
Case Number D075494
Date Description Notes
03/14/2019 Notice of appeal lodged/received. Filed 12/3/18 by Darren Chaker
03/14/2019 Application filed. Appellant’s request to file new litigation
03/14/2019 Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated: 1/22/19
03/14/2019 Appellant’s notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on: 2/5/19
03/14/2019 Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated: 2/26/19
03/19/2019 Appellate package sent.
03/19/2019 Vexatious litigant application granted Appellant’s March 14, 2019, request for permission to appeal is GRANTED. (Code of Civ. Proc. sec. 391.7, subd. (b).) The matter will proceed in accordance with the California Rules of Court.
03/19/2019 Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c).
03/21/2019 Default notice received-appellant notified per rule 8.140(a)(1). 3/20/19
03/26/2019 Application for waiver of filing fee filed.
03/27/2019 Order waiving filing fee.
04/12/2019 Appeal dismissed per rule 8.140(b). Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.140, the appeal filed December 3, 2018, is DISMISSED for appellant’s failure to timely designate the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121(a)).
05/13/2019 Motion filed. Motion to ReInstate Appeal
05/13/2019 Order filed. Appellant’s request to reinstate his appeal is GRANTED. Appellant’s appeal filed December 3, 2018, is hereby REINSTATED. The San Diego Superior Court is directed to
prepare the record on appeal as outlined in appellant’s notice designating the record on appeal. The record is due 30 days from the date of this order.
06/07/2019 Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated: June 6, 2019
06/11/2019 Received copy of document filed in trial court. Designation
06/11/2019 Received default notice 8.121(a) designation not filed. Dated: June 10, 2019
06/24/2019 Received copy of document filed in trial court. Appellant’s Designation
07/25/2019 RECORD ON APPEAL FILED.************ **Clerk’s Transcript-1 (31)
08/29/2019 Granted – extension of time.
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF. Due on 10/03/2019 By 30 Day(s)
10/16/2019 Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.
11/01/2019 Granted – extension of time. LAST EXTENSION
11/12/2019 APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF. Plaintiff and Appellant: Darren Chaker
Pro Per
11/12/2019 Request for judicial notice filed.
12/04/2019 Ruling on request for judicial notice deferred Appellant’s request for judicial notice filed November 12, 2019, will be considered concurrently with the appeal.
12/26/2019 Respondent notified re failure to file respondent’s brief.
01/22/2020 Case on ready list; no reply by respondent to notice re failure to file brief. Defendant and Respondent: San Diego Superior Court
Attorney: Susanne C. Washington
01/22/2020 CASE FULLY BRIEFED.
01/22/2020 Oral argument waiver notice sent. February 3, 2020
O/A letter to Appellant only – NO RB
09/18/2020 Submission order filed.
10/08/2020 Original entry stricken – sequence no. not removed. (Signed Unpublished)Opinion filed. (Rehearing Granted on 11.6.2020)
10/26/2020 Rehearing petition filed. Plaintiff and Appellant: Darren Chaker
Pro Per
10/27/2020 Filed request to publish opinion.
10/28/2020 Order filed. On October 26, 2020, appellant Darren Chaker filed a petition for rehearing (Petition). Among other claims, appellant contends this court should not have taken judicial notice of the portions of the Superior Court file which are referenced in our opinion filed on October 8, 2020. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.268, the Court requests that respondent San Diego Superior Court file an answer addressing whether rehearing should be granted, and supplemental briefing should be obtained, solely on the issue of whether judicial notice may be taken of the Superior Court files. Respondent may also address any of the remaining issues in the Petition. The answer is due no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, November 2, 2020. The clerk shall promptly send the parties a copy of this order and immediately notify them by email.
11/02/2020 Answer to petition filed
11/05/2020 Order denying publication filed. The request for publication of the opinion filed October 8, 2020 is denied. Dato, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not participate.
11/06/2020 Order granting rehearing petition filed. On October 26, 2020, appellant Darren Chaker filed a petition for rehearing (Petition). Among other claims, appellant contends this court should not have taken judicial notice of the portions of the Superior Court file which are referenced in our opinion filed on October 8, 2020. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.268, the Court grants in part appellant’s Petition and orders rehearing solely on the issue of whether judicial notice may be taken of the Superior Court files referenced in the opinion.
The parties may file a supplemental brief addressing only the issue of whether judicial notice may be taken of the Superior Court files referenced in our opinion filed on October 8, 2020. Any supplemental brief must be filed and served on or before November 18, 2020 by 5:00 p.m., and shall not exceed ten pages.
If either party seeks oral argument, the party must file a request no later than five days after the deadline to file a supplemental brief.
This order vacates the decision and opinion filed on October 8, 2020. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.268(d).)
The clerk shall promptly send the parties a copy of this order and immediately notify them by email.
Dato, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not participate.
11/18/2020 Granted – extension of time.
Letter brief filed. Due on 11/30/2020 By 12 Day(s)
11/30/2020 Letter brief filed. Plaintiff and Appellant: Darren Chaker
Pro Per
12/14/2020 Request for oral argument filed by: A/10 (w/ request to file late)
01/27/2021 **CALENDAR NOTICE SENT** Calendar Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 at l:30 pm
02/16/2021 Motion filed. Appellant’s motion to seal documents
02/17/2021 Received: Appellant’s propsed redacted record
02/25/2021 Supreme Court order filed re: Request for Publication denied.
03/05/2021 Order filed.
04/13/2021 Cause argued and submitted.
04/19/2021 Order filed. Appellant’s Motion to Place Documents under Seal under Code of Civil Procedure Section 367.3 (Safe at Home), filed February 16, 2021, is denied. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.550, & 8.46-8.47.)
04/19/2021 Opinion filed. (Signed Unpublished)The order denying Chaker’s application to vacate the prefiling orders and remove his name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders is modified to direct that the 2001 prefiling order be amended as follows:
The 2001 order shall be amended such that the portion of the order that previously provided that the court “enters a pre-filing order which prohibits [Chaker] from initiating any new litigation in any court in the State of California, whether in propria persona or represented by counsel, without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed with notice to the affected party” shall provide that the court “enters a prefiling order which prohibits Chaker, under any name or alias, from initiating any new litigation in any court in the State of California in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed with notice to the affected party.” In addition, whether Chaker is proceeding in propria persona or is represented by counsel, the prefiling order applies: (1) in cases Nero v. Conam Management Corporation (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 2001, No. GIC757326) and Chaker v. S.A. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 2015, No. D543061); (2) in any related litigation filed against any adverse party in cases Nero v. Conam Management Corporation (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 2001, No. GIC757326) and Chaker v. S.A. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, 2015, No. D543061); and (3) in any other litigation previously filed by Chaker where the trial court has found that Chaker has attempted to circumvent section 391.7 by retaining counsel to serve as a mere ” ‘puppet’ attorney” (Kinney, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 738), and in any related litigation filed against any adverse party in such cases.
As modified, the order denying Chaker’s application to vacate the prefiling orders and remove his name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders is affirmed.