Wood v Sparks, Orange County Superior Court Case Number 30-2016-00866123.


From the court of appeals ruling it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

The lead attorney for the plaintiff listed by the court of appeal is Glenn Stern.




His law office is also listed by the Orange County Superior Court as an attorney in the trial court.




Stern's client had a personal injury case and filed an appeal after a judgment was made.




Attorney Glenn Stern first argued the judge denied his request to add an expert witness because he would not agree to move the case to a limited jurisdiction court.

The court of appeals first said Stern failed to provide any citation to the record of when this occurred during trial court proceedings.

Then the justices noted Stern had not provided them with "the reporter's transcript or any other pretrial documents or rulings. Most critically, it includes no transcript or settled statement related to the ex parte proceeding..."

Given the deficient record the court of appeals ruled the issue was "waived".




Then the court of appeals said from what was in the record the "evidence does not support" Stern's claim.

Instead of making a condition on Stern adding an expert witness, the judge had denied an ex parte motion to add an expert. Then the judge said if he knew about the case earlier he would have referred it to a limited jurisdiction court and that would have given Stern an opportunity to file a regular motion to add an expert. The judge asked counsel if they wanted to stipulate to a referral so he could file a noticed motion and counsel declined.




Then attorney Glenn Stern challenged an evidence ruling the trial judge made.

The court of appeals said counsel had "mischaracterized" the ruling.




Glenn Stern, Esq., claimed the judge again "abused its discretion" by excluding a computer animation from trial.




But the court of appeals noted what really happened is a computer animation was sought to be shown to the jury.

There was an objection and the court noted the person who created the animation needed to testify to create the foundation to admit the video into evidence.

Counsel said they would try to get the animator to court the next day. Then did nothing and dropped the issue.

The court of appeals said attorney Stern "waived" his claim by failing to call the animator as a witness.

From what we read from the court of appeals the trial work and appeal, in our opinion, seems to be embarrassing and bad.

Then we saw on Glenn Stern's website he claims to be a "Master Advocate" and "teaches the Los Angeles Trial Skills course for practicing trial lawyers at Loyola Law School..."




Wow.

All attorneys brag about how great they are on their websites.

It is from reading court rulings from judges that the curtain gets pulled back about their actual practice.

Can you imagine paying for a trial skills course then reading the above and what the court of appeals said about Glenn Stern's actual legal work?

- He waived his client's issues

- Mischaracterized what happened in the trial court

- Was unable to get a computer animation into evidence (wonder how much that animation cost!)

- Abandoned the effort to get the animation into evidence

- Failed to provide a sufficient record to the court of appeal

- Lost the trial

- Lost the appeal

Maybe Glenn Stern, the "Master Advocate", can hand out a copy of the court of appeals ruling in class so other lawyers will know how not to conduct a trial and appeal.

Do you think Loyola Law should hire someone else to teach a trial skills course?

Maybe the opposing attorney in the Sparks case?

Glenn Stern was admitted to the California Bar in 1978. Bar Number 84485.

333 West Foothill Boulevard
Glendora, California 91741

Law School: Whittier College of Law