Bic D. Pho v. Eastwest Trading Co, LLC - Breck Milde of the Hopkins & Carley law firm we believe is the attorney for the defendants. The Santa Clara online court records list Breck Milde as the attorney for defendants.

In a tentative ruling a Santa Clara County judge levies large sanctions of $2710 due to Breck Milde's conduct.

The court's comments about attorney Milde deserve close attention.

From the ruling this is what happened:

On December 7, 2017, plaintiff mailed discovery for Mr. Milde's client to answer. Discovery responses are generally due in 30 days.

After not receiving any response plaintiff's counsel followed-up about a response.

Attorney Breck Milde responded saying his "staff" had made a calendering mistake but responses will be made this week.

So far, no problem. Mistakes happen. It also sometimes happens an attorney throws his staff under the bus.

Milde's office then served a limited response.

Plaintiff's counsel then asked for an amended response and a full production of documents.

Attorney Milde said in response "all" documents from his client will be provided next week.

Note: Here is a problem as Milde is indicating he did not initially provide all of his client's documents.

Milde's office then served another limited response with blacked out information, and no amended response. Our interpretation is no amended response meant nothing was provided under penalty of perjury by Breck Milde's client and was thus tantamount to no response at all.

Plaintiff then filed a motion to compel.

This is where the judge basically calls attorney Milde a liar ...

The tentative ruling opens by noting defendant's counsel - that is Breck Milde - says discovery was hand served on January 5, 2018.

The judge says plaintiff's counsel's statement discovery was served a month earlier on December 7th is "more credibile" and that is who the "court is inclined to believe".

In other words, the court does not believe attorney Milde.

Nor do we.

If you look at the dates and correspondence referred to in the court's order what Milde claims does not make sense.

If discovery was served on January 5th, and not due until February 4th, why would attorney Milde:

- Say on January 18th his staff failed to calendar the deadline to respond.

- Serve a response on January 19th.

- Say on February 2nd all documents will be provided.

- Not provide blacked out documents until February 16th.

None of this makes sense.

If discovery was served on January 5th attorney Milde's response would have been responses are not due until February 4th.

That is why the judge said it was not believing Breck Milde and not finding his statements credible.

Note: We have not reviewed the court file, but typically statements like Mr. Milde's are made under penalty of perjury in filed paperwork. It could be Breck Milde, Esq., committed perjury before a court.

In the ruling the judge then proceeded to describe how the responses from Milde's office that were provided did not comply with California law.

The judge also noted Milde made a privacy objection he did not try to justify.

In the end the court laid down the hammer imposing $2710 in sanctions upon Breck Milde's client, payable within twenty days.

In our view the ruling reflects on attorney Breck Milde's competence.

It cannot be overstated how bad it is for a judge to indicate an attorney is not credible and his story of events will not be believed. Assuming the attorney statements reflected in the tentative ruling were made under penalty of perjury, in our opinion it is difficult to see how Milde could effectively continue to represent clients in court.

What happened may be a bigger headache for Breck Milde Esq. and Hopkins & Carley in the future.

Every time Milde has a case in San Jose, or before this judge, it is unlikely the court will be thinking this is a trustworthy and believable attorney, or one who should be given the benefit of the doubt in a dispute. Other attorneys could point to this noting Breck Milde has a history of misconduct.

Could this negatively impact a client's case? Yes.

If you are considering retaining attorney Breck Milde to be your lawyer you will want to consider what is said in this order.

Lorie Williams v. Breck Milde is a legal malpractice lawsuit against attorney Milde. The case was filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court.

From the tentative ruling in that case it appears Breck Milde is being sued for $227,072.81.

Apparently, attorney Milde represented the plaintiff in a lawsuit and she won a default judgment for $227,072.81.

However, because this amount was not pled in the complaint and not listed in a statement of damages, the court threw out the default judgment as void.

This seems to be basic lawyering. Before seeking a default judgment the amount claimed needs to be stated so the defendant knows the amount of their risk if they default.

In the tentative ruling Breck Milde was claiming allegations were undercertain as he could not figure out how the $227,072.81 was arrived at.

LOL!

As succinctly stated by the judge when this claim was rejected:

"There is no uncertainty as to how and the manner in which Plaintiff was allegedly damaged. She clearly pleads she was damaged as a result of Defendants' failure to include an identifiable amount of damages in her pleadings and submit a statement of damages."

However, the judge did strike claims for punitive damages and attorney fees against attorney Milde because the law did not allow their recovery.

Breck Milde was admitted to the California Bar in 1986. Bar Number 122437.

Hopkins & Carley
70 South 1st Street
San Jose, California 95113

Law School: Santa Clara University