Smith v Perez Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number 18STCV07384.


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

Attorney Michael Rix represented the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case.




The court's case docket lists Michael Rix as plaintiff's counsel of record.




During the lawsuit defendant served Rix's client with a request to produce documents and two requests to answer written questions.

The defense attorney granted attorney Rix with six extensions of time to answer the discovery.

Despite the many extensions no responses were provided and motions to compel were filed.




In a tentative ruling the judge said Mike Rix, Esq., had not filed an opposition to the motions to compel.

The judge further said there was no evidence plaintiff was acting with substantial justification or there was any excuse that would make imposing sanctions unjust.




The judge ordered Rix's client to answer the discovery within 30 days.

$1055 in sanctions were also imposed against both attorney Michael Rix and his client "for their abuse of the discovery process."




When it came time for the court hearing on the motions to compel attorney Michael Rix did not appear.

The judge then adopted the tentative ruling as the final order of the court.






Salazar v Garcia and here Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC721910.


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

Attorney Michael Rix represents the plaintiff in a personal injury case resulting from an automobile collision.




The defendant noticed Rix's client for a deposition.

However, on the day of the deposition neither attorney Mike Rix nor his client appeared.

When defense counsel later sent a letter asking why there was no appearance, attorney Rix said he did not have the deposition on his calendar.

Defense counsel then asked for new dates for the deposition.

Michael Rix never responded or attempted to schedule the deposition.

Defendant then filed a motion to compel the deposition and requested sanctions.

The judge said the defendant was "plainly entitled" entitled to a court order compelling the deposition.

The judge also noted Michael Rix failed to oppose the deposition motion.




The judge then sanctioned attorney Mike Rix $443.15 and noted he had disregarded his obligation to meet and confer to try and reschedule the deposition.




Attorney Rix also failed to appear at the court hearing scheduled for defendant's motion to compel.




The defendant also served Rix's client with a request to produce documents and a request to answer written questions about the claims in the case.

No timely responses were made.

Defense counsel sent attorney Rix two meet and confer letters with new dates to provide discovery responses.

Still, no responses were forthcoming from Rix' office.

Defendant then filed a motion to compel.

Again, Michael Rix failed to oppose the motion.

The judge granted defendant's motion to compel.




The judge also sanctioned attorney Rix $648.55 for his misconduct.




Again, attorney Rix failed to appear at the court hearing scheduled for defendant's motion to compel.




Update: Michael Rix told us the case was dismissed for a waiver of costs and sanctions after his client decided not to pursue it.

After reading these court orders would you want to hire Michael Rix as an attorney?

There are many sanctions orders in multiple cases.

Discovery is not being responded to. Rix did not have his client's deposition on calendar. Not opposing motions to compel. Not appearing at court hearings.

In our opinion this does not exactly scream excellent lawyering. Neither do all the sanctions.

Lawzilla found a California State Bar order, involving a different attorney, indicating that being sanctioned by a judge for discovery abuse can result in State Bar discipline for failing to competently perform legal services.




In the one case the six extensions of time given by defense counsel is one of the highest numbers we have seen.

Lawzilla also noted that although sanctions were being sought he did not file any opposition or appear at the hearing. Apparently, attorney Rix agreed he deserved to be sanctioned.

It is always interesting to see what really happens in lawsuits. Here, the defense attorney filed a motion saying Rix deserved to be sanctioned and the judge agreed.

You will need to decide is this is the type of representation you want in your case.

Our interpretation of Mr. Rix' comment that the Salazar case was dismissed for a waiver of costs and sanctions suggests the sanctions awards played a part in deciding to dismiss the case.

But here's the problem: the sanctions were also against attorney Rix. Why didn't he pay the sanctions???

If Michael Rix paid the sanctions, as ordered by the judge, then that would not have been something his client needed to get a waiver from for a dismissal.

Michael Rix was admitted to the California Bar in 2004. Bar Number 233653.

Mike Rix
25060 Avenue Stanford, Suite 255
Valencia, California 91355

Law School: Hofstra 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.