Priolo v City of San Bruno, San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number 18-CIV-03131.


From the court's ruling and San Mateo Court case docket it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Marta Vanegas and her law firm Martin and Vanegas represents the plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit.




Vanegas has stated she is the lead attorney for the case.




The defendant in the case filed a motion for summary judgment.

Marta Vanegas, Esq., signed an opposition brief to the motion. Her conclusion asked that the motion be denied, but also said plaintiff was dismissing the remaining individual defendants.




A brief opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot be longer than 20 pages.




The judge in the case said that the opposition attorney Vanegas submitted to the court was 31 pages long.

Describing Ms. Vanegas' conduct, the judge said her brief was "unreasonably" long and she was "blatantly" violating court rules.

The judge said he was "admonishing" attorney Marta Vanegas by name, two other attorneys by name, and her entire law firm to "learn and comply with all Rules of Court in this and every other case."

The judge also said two sets of supplemental evidence were submitted after defendant had already filed its reply papers.

It was noted the Vanegas' law firm's filings were "delinquent", had not sought permission from the court to file, and had not offered "good cause" for doing so. The judge struck both submissions and refused to consider the evidence.




Marta Vanegas filed a declaration with the court stating evidence was not submitted due to "clerical error" by her "support staff".

She also said her law office printer would freeze if trying to print a pdf file larger than 15 pages, and the pages disappear.




She said she was handling the filing of the opposition while out of the office in Los Angeles.




Vanegas also declared not considering the evidence would be tantamount to a "terminating sanction" against her client.

The judge said the "unreasonably" long brief about 50 percent longer than allowed by court rules, was a "blatant" violation.

"Blatant", in our opinion, means obvious and intentional in this context. It was not a mistake.

Then were two late submissions of evidence without asking permission from the judge.

Claiming a printer will freeze on pdf files longer than 15 pages and the pages disappear seems a questionable excuse.

Hmmmm. How did the 31 page brief get printed?

No one reviewed the final documents before filing and serving to other counsel to ensure they were correct? How did the pages ever finally get printed?




There were apparently 91 pages of late submitted evidence!

How does one file an opposition and not notice 91 pages are missing? It does not seem to us to be a small number.

It also appears that another attorney in the law firm was reviewing and submitting the evidence. (Not just support staff)




In the case docket file it looked like there were less than 20 pages of evidence (although more than 15! the printer would supposedly not allow). Perhaps the judge had the same question we had - how could 91 missing pages not be noticed in this context? It does not appear to be a situation where thousands of pages are being submitted and 91 pages could be an oversight.

Blaming "support staff" seems inappropriate in this context.


Bottom Line: Would you hire Marta Vanegas or her law firm?

There are many competent employment law attorneys available.

For Lawzilla, it isn't just the blatant rules violation and seemingly unbelievable excuses for not timely submitting evidence, or the "sanction" referenced by Vanegas, but the credibility before the court.

Here the judge had to admonish attorneys by name and also the entire law firm.

The judge did not consider some of the evidence - which Vanegas said was tantamount to a sanction hurting her client.

The support staff excuse and 15-page printer issue seem particularly weak - if not unbelievable.

That is the problem in our opinion. This is just one case and one ruling. But does this attorney and law firm have the credibility they need before the judge to properly represent clients' interests in other cases?

Marta Vanegas was admitted to the California Bar in 2011. Bar Number 278328.

Martin & Vanegas, APC
3100 Oak Road, Suite 230
Walnut Creek, California 94597

Law School: University of California at Davis