Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Shahrouz Jahanshahi v. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, et al.
Paid petition · Supreme Court of California, No. S274045 · judgment May 18, 2022
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
John Adams eloquently stated “we are nation of laws, not men.” This petition presents an opportunity for this Court to hold whether the Superior Court of California has adhered to rule of the law or has acted in excess ofjurisdiction. The Due Process Clause of the laws guaranteed under the United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment requires, fair, unbiased, im partial adjudication of the matters before the tribunal. The questions presented are: • (1) Does California anti-SALPP statute Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 protect illegal, unlawful activity? • (2) Can an Independent Calendar (IC) judge of the California court transfer the action to another department of the court whereas that authority is vested with presiding judge or master calendar judge? • (3) Whether ghostwriting should be al lowed and promoted where there is di vided Federal Circuits on this topic? • (4) Does the Due Process Clause of the law require participation of all three ap pellate justices for the oral argument as recognized by California Supreme Court?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Shahrouz Jahanshahi
For respondent
Harini P. Raghupathi
Singleton Schreiber, LLP
Proceedings
- Jan 09 2023Petition DENIED.
- Dec 07 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
- Nov 12 2022Waiver of right of respondent Benjamin Tarn Rosenfeld to respond filed.
- Oct 12 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 25, 2022)
- Jul 29 2022Application (22A78) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 15, 2022.
- Jul 19 2022Application (22A78) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 16, 2022 to October 15, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.