Cavic v. Schreiber
Danny Cavic identifiesin his notice of appeal five underlying trial court orders he claims are erroneous. The notice also liststheeventual entry of judgment dismissing Cavic’s malpractice action against Gary E. Schreiber, Jerome D. Stark, Jerome D. Stark, P.C., other attorneys who formerly represented Cavic, and numerous other defendants. The trialcourt dismissed thecase after Cavic failed to post security required of him as a vexatious litigant.
In his brief on appeal,Cavic makes no mention of any of the underlying orders, nor indeed of the trial court’s entry of judgment, except to note the bare fact that the trial court denied his judicial disqualification motionand allegedly entered the dismissal “without any explanation” beyond his failure to post security. Cavic does not directly challenge either of these rulings, nor the others listed in his notice of appeal. Instead, he uses his brief as a clarion call to the electorate. He states, “People
Comments on Cavic v. Schreiber