Maricela Valdivia v. Best Label Company, Inc

Summary:

Defendant is represented by attorney Kevin R. Allen, also known as the Allen Attorney Group.

The judge sanctioned attorney Kevin R. Allen, personally, for $1560, in addition to defendant, and ordered responses to 102 document requests.



From the Judge and Court File:

From the tentative ruling and final order this is what happened:

Attorney Kevin R. Allen represents the defendant in this wrongful termination case.

The plaintiff served discovery for Allen's client to answer- a request for production of documents. The responses were apparently inadequate and plaintiff's counsel sought to meet and confer to resolve the issue. Ultimately, though, plaintiff filed a motion to compel.

After the motion to compel was filed, attorney Kevin R. Allen's client decided to provide supplementary responses.

Attorney Allen then claimed the motion to compel was moot.

The judge said in this situation the court needs to evaluate the situation and decide whether the issue is moot or not.

In this situation the judge said it was not moot and plaintiff's motion was granted.

Turning to the issue of sanctions, the judge said sanctions were appropriate.

$1560 was awarded.

The judge noted:

- Plaintiff's discovery was appropriate.

- Plaintiff's counsel had made appropriate meet and confer efforts to try and resolve the problem.

- Unjustifiable objections were made to the discovery.

- Defendant was acting without substantial justification.

- Defendant only served supplemental discovery after a motion to compel was filed and plaintiff had incurred those costs.

In the tentative the judge simply says the motion for sanctions is granted, but sanctions were sought against attorney Kevin R. Allen and the defendant. In the court's final order it states the sanctions were awarded against Kevin R. Allen of the Allen Law Group jointly with his client.



Lawzilla Commentary:

Noteworthy is the judge's comments that the discovery was "clearly relevant" and there was "no justification" for objections to the document requests.

Typically, it is the attorney who makes objections.

$1560 is a large amount of sanctions.

Would you hire the Kevin R. Allen Attorney Group to be your attorney?

This is only one case and one order. Because it is just one discovery order caution should be made about drawing any conclusions. But there are red flags.

The judge's statements seem to reflect on attorney Allen's judgment and competence.

The court notes the discovery was "clearly relevant" and Kevin Allen provided "no justification" for objections to the discovery.

That is harsh.

In our opinion what the judge is basically saying is Kevin Allen, Esq., did not properly evaluate what discovery is relevant and did not properly evaluate what objections are appropriate.

If an attorney cannot do that how would one expect him to properly evaluate an entire case?

We are also concerned about what is the point of making objections only to quickly fold in the face of a motion to compel?

Ultimately, did the Allen Attorney Group actually charge his client for this legal work?

Kevin Allen was admitted to the California Bar in 2005. Bar Number 237994.

Allen Attorney Group
2121 North California Boulevard, Suite 290
Walnut Creek, California 94596

Law School: Santa Clara

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.