Cordes v Smart and Final Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC703376.


From the Los Angeles court online case records it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Andrew Ulwelling is one of the attorneys from the Wolfe and Wyman law firm representing the defendant in a premises liability case.




During the lawsuit plaintiff served different types of discovery requests, including a request that Ulwelling's client produce documents, answer written questions, and to respond to requests for admissions.

Plaintiff then filed motions to compel further responses to the discovery.

The judge reviewed the discovery requests, objections by attorney Andrew Ulwelling and his firm, and responses by his client.

The judge in a tentative order granted the requests to compel further responses in part and denied other requests.

For example, the judge said Ulwelling's client was required to identify the representative who provided the answers to its attorneys.




The judge also said sanctions of $1520 were appropriate against Andrew Ulwelling, Esq;, his law firm Wolfe and Wyman, and his client.




The motions then proceeding to a hearing at the courthouse.

After considering oral argument the judge adopted most of the tentative ruling as the final order of the court, including the $1520 in sanctions against attorney Andrew Ulwelling.

Lawzilla found a California State Bar order, involving a different attorney, indicating that being sanctioned by a judge for discovery misconduct can result in State Bar discipline for failing to competently perform legal services.




We thought it was interesting that there had to be a motion to compel a further response to form interrogatory 1.1 where a company identifies the person(s) providing the information and answers to discovery.

Lawzilla understands "form" to mean these are pre-prepared questions for general use in civil lawsuit.

We have reviewed hundreds of discovery orders and do not recall this basic question ever being a problem.

But, from the court order we believe it was an issue for Mr. Ulwelling.

Although some of the issues in the discovery motions were won by plaintiff, about as many were lost. We have a suspicion that basic questions like this, which should not be an issue a judge needs to spend time deciding, may have been a basis for why sanctions were awarded.

The judge also ruled some of the objections raised to discovery requests were without merit, such as for questions asking for the identity and contact information of potential witnesses.

Overall, from what we read from the judge we were not overly impressed with Andrew Ulwelling's legal abilities.

It is always useful to read from a judge about what is really happening in lawsuits, the types of legal positions being taken by attorneys, and whether the positions are well-reasoned and have merit.

Something to think about before deciding to hire Andrew Ulwelling as an attorney.

Andrew Ulwelling was admitted to the California Bar in 2010. Bar Number 272400.

Wolfe and Wyman, LLP
2301 Dupont Drive Suite 300
Irvine, California 92612

Law School: Western State University

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, wages, etc.