Wickline

Wickline v. Schweder CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 2025D084858California10,933 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 12/18/25 Wickline v. Schweder CA4/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WICKLINE, D084858

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIC1708891)

INGO SCHWEDER,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Randall S. Stamen, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded. Complex Appellate Litigation Group, Rex S. Heinke and Jessica M. Weisel; Holland & Knight, David A. Robinson and Anne Redcross Beehler for Plaintiff and Appellant. Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robin Meadow, Jeffrey Gurrola and Kylie L. Reynolds; Liner Freedman Taitelman + Cooley, Ellyn S. Garofalo and Amir Kaltgrad for Defendant and Respondent.

This…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.