Metoyer v Guzman Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number 18STCV00344.


From the Los Angeles County online records for this case it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

The Law Offices of Jacob Emrani represented the plaintiff in a motor vehicle personal injury case.

During the lawsuit the defendant noticed the deposition of Emrani's client.

No objection was made per statute to the deposition. However, there was an "objection" (quotes per judge) that plaintiff and counsel were not available.

No one appeared at the deposition.

Defense counsel inquired about the nonappearance, then moved to compel the deposition and for sanctions.




...




The judge indicated that the deposition of Jacob Emrani's client had been previously scheduled, but that on "multiple times" the attorneys stated they could not reach their client.




The judge said "Plaintiff’s counsel has also provided no explanation for why Plaintiff was unavailable" for an entire week.

The judge said the opposition filed by the Law Office of Jacob Emrani "provides little assurance that this deposition will occur promptly without a Court order."




The judge even suggested that the Jacob Emrani firm should not be attorneys in the case if they could not maintain contact with their client: "If counsel cannot maintain communication with his client, he should consider requesting to be relieved as counsel."




In a tentative ruling the judge then made some "Concluding Observations" including this remark:

"Of course, it may be too bold for this Court to suggest that if Plaintiff's lawyers (the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani) would timely return or respond to the various phone calls and/or letters by the defendant's lawyers in this regard, that perhaps this motion could have been avoided.

Be that as it may, it is painfully and readily apparent in this particular case, that it hasn't been beneficial to anyone so far to simply 'Call Jacob.'©"

This was from the court's tentative ruling the judge posted.

A hearing was then held.

No one appeared at the hearing for the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani. However, the judge said they had submitted to the tentative ruling.

The judge then issued a final order approving sanctions against the Jacob Emrani law firm for $1055.

$1055 is in our opinion a lot of sanctions.

Our opinion of the judge's order is the Jacob Emrani law firm had been unresponsive in the case.

It was indicated by the judge that the attorneys did not "timely return or respond to" various letters and/or phone calls from the defense attorney.

There was a communications failure with their own client.

That resulted in what seemed to be a mocking of what must be advertising or a firm slogan to "Call Jacob".

We do not recall seeing a judge do that before.

Based on this ruling and what the judge said - what is your conclusion about the competence of the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani, and whether you would want to hire the Emrani firm to represent you?



It is just one case, but in our view the judge's comments provide a unique window into how attorneys handle matters.

We believe attorney sanctions can be a serious matter. Lawzilla found a California State Bar order, involving a different attorney, indicating that being sanctioned and violating a court order to pay the sanctions can lead to State Bar discipline for failing to competently perform legal services.

Jacob Emrani was admitted to the California Bar in 1996. Bar Number 185535.

Law Offices of Jacob Emrani
714 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 300
Los Angeles, California 90015

Law School: Southwestern 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.