Chaker v. San Diego Superior Court
NB's Membership Status
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 12:09:2020 - 10:59:08
Biographical Information
Contact Information
Submission History
Xian v. Sengupta CA1/1
McBride v. National Default Servicing Corp. CA1/1
P. v. Franklin CA1/3
Epis v. Bradley CA1/4
In re A.R. CA6
Find all listings submitted by NB
By NB
04:29:2021 (Edited )
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.
Description | The order denies Chaker's application to vacate the prefiling orders and remove his name from the Judicial Council's list of vexatious litigants. |
Rating | |
Views | 59 views. Averaging 59 views per day. |