American Meizhou Dongpo Holding v. Dean, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC619120.


From the appellate court's decision and online county court docket it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Michael York is listed as the attorney representing the plaintiff and appellant.




Attorney York is also listed in the court records as representing the plaintiff in the trial court in the hearing for the motion to strike and demurrer.




And it was Michael York, Esq., who filed the appeal in this matter.




The court of appeals decision does not describe what the lawsuit is about.

The ruling does say the trial judge granted defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike the lawsuit and dismissed the claims of Michael York's client.

The judge then awarded the defendant $34,733.50 in legal fees.

York appealed and claimed the fee award improperly included time spent on the demurrer and another motion.




The unanimous court of appeal ruled the attorneys representing the plaintiff, Michael York and WHGC, had "forfeited" the issue by failing to first address the issue with the trial court.




The court of appeal then affirmed the trial court's ruling since the issue had been forfeited.






Ko v. Liang, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Numbers BC596209 and BC341708.


From the appellate court's decision it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Michael York is listed as the attorney representing the defendant and appellant.









This case involved a battle between two families over who possessed a house.

The trial court ruled against York's client. York's client then lost an appeal. (This may have been before York or WHGC were retained)

Another lawsuit again resulted in a judgment against York's client. The judge ruled attorney York's client had acted in "bad faith".

Michael York then filed an appeal - and lost.




The court of appeals used particular language in referring to the arguments put forth by attorney Michael York on behalf of his clients.

The court said four "invalid arguments" were raised.




For the first argument the justices said the argument was "frivolous".




The justices said attorney York relied on an "irrelevant opinion".




As to the second invalid argument, the justices noted York's argument "cite[d] no legal authority at all."

The judge said York's client acted in bad faith and no authority was presented that acting in bad faith is a valid legal tactic.

The court of appeals concluded that the argument was "frivolous".




For the third invalid argument the court of appeal again ruled acting in bad faith is not a valid tactic.

The justices again noted Michael York had cited to no legal authority in the argument.




Then, continuing analyzing the argument being made, the court of appeal for a third time ruled the there was no legal authority for the argument.

"[C]ite no legal authority approving of bad faith as an appropriate response to a court order."




For the fourth and final invalid argument it was held the reliance on a case was "misplaced".

Case #1:

Ouch.

Whatever the lawsuit was about, the legal strategy and claims seem ill-advised.

The case was dismissed by a SLAPP motion and York's client was hit with more then $34,000 in legal fees to pay defendant's counsel.

Then Michael York forfeited the appeal.

In our opinion we would not be surprised if more attorney fees were awarded due to the lost appeal.


Reviewing the court of appeals online information, it appears attorney Michael York was given seven extensions of time totaling 155 days combined to prepare his initial brief and reply brief.




We do not know why so many extensions were required, and so much time.

But the appearance does not give us a lot of confidence about attorney Michael York..

It took the court of appeals only about one page to rule issues were forfeited and to affirm the trial court.


Case #2:

Shortly after reviewing the first case we reviewed the second case and were shocked it involved the same attorney.

The court of appeals called Michael York's arguments "frivolous" and "invalid".

The judges repeatedly said an invalid argument was being made without citing any legal authority.

In our opinion, based on these two cases, Lawzilla does not recommend Michael York and the WHGC law firm.

Michael York was admitted to the California Bar in 1979. Bar Number 89945.

Law Office of Michael G. York
1301 Dove Street Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 92660

Law School: Loyola Law School



Note: Michael York is also of-counsel to the WHGC law firm.

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.