WAYLAN WONG VS ARACELLY ARCEO SOLIS - Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC663727. Brian Breiter is listed as plaintiff's attorney according to the complaint in this motor vehicle accident lawsuit.




Attorney Brian Breiter is listed by name by the judge when referring to plaintiff's counsel in a tentative court order.




According to a tentative ruling issued by the judge this is what happened:

In July 2017 the defendant served discovery for Breiter's client to answer.




The court order refers to a request to produce documents and written questions to answer.

Responses to discovery requests are generally due in about thirty days.

In April 2018, almost EIGHT MONTHS later, the judges order indicates Breiter's office still had not sent responses to the discovery requests and motions to compel had been filed.




After the motions were filed what did attorney Brian Breiter do?

Apparently, according to the court file, Brian Breiter did not oppose the motions to compel.

The defense attorney filed notices with the court saying the motions were not opposed. Here is a sample:




As a result the judge ordered Breiter's clients to respond to all discovery, without any objection, within twenty days.




The court also specifically sanctioned attorney Breiter $1320.

His clients were jointly sanctioned too.




The judge indicated sanctions were warranted for a "misuse" of discovery and acting without "substantial justification".







At the hearing on the motion it appears Brian Breiter did not appear.

The court's minute order also says the tentative ruling became the court's final order.




Four days after the court hearing defense counsel filed a public notice of the judge's order.

Would you hire Brian Breiter to be your attorney?

The judge said discovery was not responded to for months. The judge does not recite any explanation why. No opposition was filed to the motions to compel discovery or request for sanctions.

Mr. Breiter represented to us the case settled before the hearing and was inadvertently kept on calendar.

From the court's record that representation does not seem reasonably plausible. Rather, it appears Brian Breiter made a false representation to us, and he did so self-servingly in an attempt to get us to take this page down.

In our view, we would not hire Mr. Breiter as an attorney.



Did the judge sanction just the attorney?

The judge said both Brian Breiter and his clients were being sanctioned. Since the lawyer represents the client this is common. However, we believe the attorney is not always sanctioned because their client does not answer discovery.



What happens if the sanctions are not paid?

Our understanding is the defendant could obtain a judgment for the sanctions. They could then levy on attorney Breiter's bank account, and his clients' bank accounts. Their wages could be levied. There could be an order for more sanctions if these sanctions are not paid.


Update:

Brian Breiter contacted Lawzilla and said the defendant agreed to waive any sanctions since discovery responses were later produced and the case settled.

He also represented, contrarily, the defense did not pursue the discovery responses because the case had settled before the hearing and was inadvertently not taken off calendar.

In our opinion it is not possible for both discovery responses to be later produced and the case later settled, and for the case to have settled before the hearing and mistakenly not taken off calendar.

We have given attorney Brian Breiter the warning light at the top of the page because, in our opinion, he is dishonest and lied to us - and he did so in an attempt to try and get us to take down this page.

In particular, Mr. Breiter stated the case had settled and was inadvertently not taken off calendar.

However, as shown above with pictures of court records:


- 8 days before the hearing defendant filed a notice with the court saying Breiter had not filed an opposition.

The defendant did not tell the court the case had settled. Just the opposite.


- On the day of the hearing defense attorney Shirley Carpenter-Bridwell appeared before the judge. She told the judge defendant submitted to the court's tentative ruling.

Defense counsel did not tell the court the case had settled. Just the opposite - and asked for an order to compel discovery and impose sanctions.


- 4 days AFTER the hearing defendant served a notice of the court's ruling.

Again, defense counsel was not stating had settled. Rather, they were sending notice of the order to compel discovery and for the payment of sanctions, presumably so the order could be enforced.


- 4 MONTHS AFTER the hearing attorney Brian Breiter filed a dismissal of the case. It is dated two months prior.




Is it possible the case had settled before the hearing and was "inadvertently" not taken off calendar and this happened:

- The defendant filed a notice saying Breiter had not opposed the motions to compel and sanctions requests?

- Defense counsel appeared before the judge and asked that the tentative ruling be made a final ruling to compel discovery responses and sanctions?

- Defense counsel would later send a notice of the court's order so it could be enforced?

- It was not until 4 months later that Breiter filed a dismissal.

In our opinion, very, very unlikely. It is our belief Brian Breiter lied to us in a fraudulent attempt to get us to remove the reporting about his being sanctioned.

Brian Breiter was admitted to the California Bar in 1999. Bar Number 205102.

Law Offices of Brian Breiter
4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 410
Los Angeles, California 90010

Law School: Nova 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.