KELLY CASTLE v. WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE

Summary: Attorney Chris Kroes of McCarthy and Kroes represents the defendant. Plaintiff made a request for documents. Defendant claimed documents were produced but plaintiff said they were not.

The parties produced their versions of the document response. The judge said "notably" an exhibit the Kroes law office produced was missing a proof of service. The judge also said defendant "wrongfully withheld documents", "produced only parts" of other documents, and there did not appear to be "documents responsive to [other] requests".

Plaintiff asked for $16,835 in sanctions. In the tentative ruling the judge said $2500 was appropriate sanctions against defendant and counsel.

After a hearing was held the judge's final ruling said no sanctions were imposed against the defendant. The $2500 sanction was only against the attorney.



From the Judge and Court File:

Chris Kroes of McCarthy and Kroes represents the defendant. For this matter, Mr. Kroes was the attorney for defendant submitting a declaration under penalty of perjury stating he had personal knowledge of matters before the judge.



Plaintiff served a request for documents on attorney Kroes' client. Defendant responded to each request stating he "will produce" the documents. A couple days later documents were produced.

Plaintiff's attorney filed a motion to compel claiming no emails were included in the document production. Defendant claimed the emails were provided.

The judge said "Both attach as exhibits each's purported version of the entirety of the exhibit."

The judge then said the version of documents provided by the McCarthy and Kroes law firm "notably" "does not include a proof of service for its own document production."

After deciding that plaintiff's motion was timely and proper the court made a ruling about the dueling versions of documents and who was correct. The judge said:

- "The court finds that defendant has wrongfully withheld documents he promised to produce."

- "Defendant produced only parts of email chains."

- "One email ... suggests Defendant may be withholding other emails."

- " Further, it does not appear that any emails or documents responsive to the remaining requests."

- "Defendant thus has not followed through with his statement of compliance."

The judge then ordered defendant to produce all emails and complete email chains.

Plaintiff's attorney sought $16,835 in sanctions. In the tentative ruling the court said a lower amount was reasonable, $2500, to be imposed against "Defendant and his counsel".

After a hearing with argument by counsel, the judge said the tentative ruling was being clarified that $2500 in sanctions were being "awarded against defendant's counsel only".







Lawzilla Commentary:

In an interesting aside, we noted the court's minute order said defendant's counsel did not personally appear in court before the judge, but appeared by phone, and the attorney appearing by phone was Linda Elias-Wheelock. We checked the State Bar records and she is an attorney with McCarthy & Kroes.



However, she is not listed on the law firm's website as one of their attorneys:



Maybe she was new to the firm and the website and not yet been updated? Or, for whatever reason she was omitted from the firm's list of attorneys?

We do not recall seeing a court order where the tentative ruling was for sanctions against a client and their attorney, but after argument by the lawyer the judge clarified the client would not be sanctioned and only the attorney would be penalized. It typically goes the other way where the attorney arguing before the judge gets their sanctions excused while leaving their client on the hook.

Maybe in the couple months between when the hearing occurred and this reporting her employment with the law firm ended and she has not updated her bar record?

Would you hire Chris Kroes to be your attorney?

This is only one ruling and one should not draw sweeping conclusions from just one case and ruling.

However, $2500 is a large amount of sanctions. Considering $16,835 in sanctions was sought the $2500 does look better by comparison.

Our biggest concern is several things the judge said or implied:

First, that documents were withheld, and withheld "wrongfully".

Second, our opinion that the judge was saying plaintiff was more credible with dueling versions of documents as the McCarthy and Kroes firm did not provide a proof of service for their claimed version.

Third, that the attorney and not the client deserved to be sanctioned.

On the other hand, as noted he avoided more than $14,000 in sanctions, and his client was not sanctioned. If could be McCarthy & Kroes fell on its sword and asked the judge to take the hit instead of their client. We do not know but have reached out to Mr. Kroes for additional information, understanding and any revisions to our initial review.

Chris Kroes was admitted to the California Bar in 1988. Bar Number 134935.

McCarthy & Kroes
125 East Victoria Street #A
Santa Barbara, California 93101

Law School: Santa Barbara College of Law

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.