Reaves v Rojas Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC489065.


From the court of appeals opinion and online case records it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Emmanuel Akudinobi represented the plaintiff and appellate in a case alleging her former supervisors conspired to violate her civil rights.

Akudinobi is listed as the attorney in the trial court records.




He is also listed as the attorney for the appeal.




During the case in the trial court, attorney Akudinobi claimed a subpoena was served for a deposition to take place.

A hearing was held about the legitimacy of the subpoena. The judge ruled the subpoena was invalid and said Akudinobi's handling of the matter was "ridiculous":

[T]the trial court described Akudinobi’s handling of the subpoena as 'ridiculous. . . . You should have pursued your case enough to know what it was about and specifically what it is you need. Just improper from top to bottom from my perspective.'

There was another subpoena issue in the case.

Attorney Emmanuel Akudinobi claimed there was personal service on a person on a specific date.

The defendant argued the claimed service was fraudulent as the person was not even at work that day.

Akudinobi did not provide the proof of service or a declaration from the process server.




The judge then imposed $750 in sanctions upon Akudinobi and his client.




Defendants served Akudinobi's client with written questions to answer called interrogatories.

They filed a motion for discovery abuses.

The trial judge ruled there was "pervasive evasiveness" in plaintiff's responses.

The judge then ruled Akudinobi's client was precluded from introducing certain evidence at trial.

Finally, another $4750 in sanctions were imposed against plaintiff and her attorneys.




On the day of trial attorney Emmanuel Akudinobi said he was not ready.

He then left the courtroom after the judge did not continue the trial and noted Akudinobi and not filed a motion to continue the trial.

The case was then dismissed.







On appeal, a unanimous court of appeals affirmed the rulings of the trial judge and dismissal of the lawsuit because attorney Emmanuel Akudinobi walked out of the trial.

Wow. What a sh*t show.

We have never heard of an attorney walking out of a trial.

After reading what the court of appeals said, would you hire Emmanuel Akudinobi as your attorney?

Would anyone?

Okorie v Los Angeles Unified School District Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BS166713.


From the court of appeals opinion and online case records it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Emmanuel Akudinobi and his law firm represented a former elementary school teacher who was fired for being dishonest and inappropriately touching a student three times.

Here attorney Akudinobi is listed as the lead attorney in the case at the trial court:




After losing in the trial court, Akudinobi is listed as one of the attorneys for an appeal.




The unanimous justices on the court appeals ruled the appeal was forfeited and lost because the briefs filed by Akudinobi's law firm were "misleading", "inaccurate", "incomplete" and "one-sided".

We affirm the judgment, principally because plaintiff’s briefs give a one-sided, incomplete and inaccurate presentation of the evidence presented at the hearing. An appellant forfeits the right to appellate review by misleading the Court of Appeal in this way.

We do not recall seeing a court of appeal ruling an appeal is forfeited because a law firm's briefing is so misleading.

In our opinion this reflects malpractice.

In our view, from these two cases, it seems Akudinobi may not have much credibility. That is what happens when justice say your briefing is so "misleading" they will toss the appeal.

Not exactly what we would want in an attorney.

was admitted to the California Bar in 1997. Bar Number 188903.

Akudinobi and Ikonte
3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1520
Los Angeles, California 90010

Law School: Creighton 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.