Jorge Garcia v Skyler Ray Tamayo, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC708990.


As described in more detail later on, Catherine Lombardo is listed on the complaint and amended complaint as the attorney for the plaintiff. She is apparently no longer with the "law firm" filing the lawsuit, but Ms. Lombardo has refused to tell when she left despite Lawzilla asking her for the date.

We would mention a law firm called Napolin, and maybe attorney Alexander Napolin, but Ms. Lombardo's name is consistent on the pleadings.

Again, the purported "law firm" at-issue will be discussed in more detail later on this page.

From the court's tentative ruling and online court docket for the case it is Lawzilla's understanding the following happened:

Catherine Lombardo is listed as an attorney filing a lawsuit for the plaintiff in an auto accident case, and then as the only attorney for the firm filing an amended complaint. It is not clear from the file information available to us when she left any association with Napolin - and she has declined to disclose when after being asked about the date of any separation..

The defendant served questions for Lombardo's client to answer, called interrogatories.

Defendant then filed a motion to compel further response to the interrogatories.

An informal discovery response was scheduled, but plaintiff's attorney at the time (probably not Lombardo) failed to appear.

No opposition was made to the motion to compel.

The judge said objections to the discovery were reviewed and found to be without merit.

As a consequence the judge tentatively imposed $760 in sanctions against the attorney of record - without specifying a name.




What was available online for the court file was reviewed, and it appears the tentative ruling became the court's final ruling.

There was no appearance by any attorney for the plaintiff (again, probably Lombardo's successor).

The judge then recited the tentative as the final ruling, noted sanctionable conduct by counsel, and imposed $760 in sanctions.

This is one of the more bizarre situations we have seen. In the original complaint filed in Garcia case attorney Catherine Lombardo claims to be an attorney with The Napolin Law Firm, LLP.




The problem?

The Napolin Law Firm, LLP, is not a registered limited liability partnership according to the California Secretary of State's Office. Or at least it never registered if it did exist - which may be important when the next document was filed ...




A few months later an amended complaint was filed in the case. This time by Catherine Lombardo for The Napolin Law Firm, Inc.




The online court docket does not reflect any substitution of attorney or change in name of the law firm from a partnership to a corporation.

But, in any event - incredibly - this corporation also does not exist, and has never existed. Again, from the Secretary of State:




LOL

Is it possible a fictitious business name is involved? We checked with Los Angeles County, and the answer is still no.





What conclusion do you draw from this?

Our opinion is that attorney Catherine Lombardo filed a false document with the court.

One of her filings seemingly has to be false. In our opinion, the corporation filing is most certainly false because the Secretary of State is reporting the corporation does not exist.

One or maybe both appears to be a fake entity - creating what we believe is a misrepresentation to the court about who is filing the lawsuit. This issue does not appear to be disclosed to the judge. No correction seems to be on file.


California Business and Professions Code section 6068 imposes numerous duties on attorneys:

(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.

(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.

A violation of the duties of an attorney "constitute causes for disbarment or suspension." (Business and Professions Code section 6103)

Additionally, California Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney conduct imposes two requirements on lawyers.

First, an attorney shall not knowingly make any false statement of fact or law to a court.

Second, an attorney shall correct any false statement of material fact or law made to a court.

Based on the court documents we have seen it appears to us Catherine Lombardo, Esq., may have violated both ethical duties in Rule 3.3. She may have also violated Section 6068.

Her name is on the documents filed with the court.


Bottom line: Even if Catherine Lombardo was not personally sanctioned because she had separated from Napolin before the issues in the motion to compel became important, the amended complaint she filed listing the Napolin Law Firm, Inc. has a lasting ripple effect when the judge tries to sanction the "attorney of record".

Question: if Catherine Lombardo of The Napolin Law Firm, Inc., files an amended complaint which is the operative pleading in the lawsuit, but the corporation does not exist, does that mean she is the attorney of record and not the corporation? If she claims to no longer be associated with Napolin (no substitution of counsel is filed), and no attorney opposes the motion to compel or shows up at the court hearing, who, if anyone, is handling the case?

Question: if Catherine Lombardo and Alexander Napolin are (hypothetically) the two partners in a partnership filing a lawsuit, and they separate, doesn't that mean the partnership no longer exists? Wouldn't that need to be disclosed to the judge? Wouldn't that mean a substitution of counsel is required?

Catherine Lombardo was admitted to the California Bar in 1992. Bar Number 160461.

The Lombardo Law Office
433 West Arrow Highway
Claremont, California 91711

Law School: University of LaVerne

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.