|
|
|
Place v Holmes, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC677855.
From the court's tentative ruling, online county court records, and California State Bar records it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:
Attorney Ashley Pham is an attorney with Cullins and Grandy, the law firm representing the defendant.
Pham represented the defendant in a car accident case.
Plaintiff's attorney was taking defendant's deposition when Pham objected to numerous questions and instructed her client not to answer.
Some of the questions including asking the defendant if he ever went by "doctor".
Attorney Ashley Pham objected to questions about whether her client had ever been a defendant in a lawsuit, even though that information is probably a public record.
Apparently, the defendant at the scene of the accident provided a business card with the name of a company on it.
Attorney Pham would not allows questions about the company.
Not even if it was registered in California.
Ashley Pham wouldn't even let her client answer questions about the name of another person who may have been on the business card he provided at the accident scene.
The judge ruled against Pham's objections and ordered that the questions be answered.
At one point the judge noted some information, such as prior lawsuits, was also requested in Judicial Council approved questions.
The judge said defendant "does not otherwise cite to any applicable legal authority" that this information cannot be provided.
The judge then sanctioned Cullins and Grandy, and its client, $2510.
The sanctions in the court's tentative ruling were apparently made into a final order by the judge.
In our opinion $2510 is a big sanction award.
It could have been worse. Plaintiff's counsel asked for $8285 but the judge ruled the issues were so "straight forward" the amount was being reduced.
Ouch.
While Ashley Pham and her law firm were probably happy to "only" pay $2510, for the judge to say it was because issues were so "straight forward" could, in our opinion, call into question attorney competence and legal judgment in making the objections.
It is one thing for a judge to need to decide a close issue with arguable merit on each side. That is what judges do.
It is another to read a judge saying this is "straight forward" - which to us means the attorney should have known better.
That may be part of why sanctions were imposed.
Would you hire Ashley Pham or Cullins and Grandy to be your attorney after reading this court ruling?
Ashley Pham was admitted to the California Bar in 2017. Bar Number 318476.
Cullins and Grandy LLP
23141 Verdugo Drive Suite 204
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Law School: Chapman 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.