Costello v Buckley, San Diego County Superior Court Case Number 37-2014-00043440.



Pam Havird is listed in the appellate court records as the attorney for the appellant filing the appeal. She is also listed in the San Diego Superior Court records as the attorney for the plaintiff, apparently following prior counsel she replaced after her client lost the trial.






From the court of appeals ruling and the trial court case docket it is Lawzilla's understanding the following happened:

Plaintiff alleged an oral contract for $42,000.




After a one day court trial the judge ruled the claims were barred by the statute of limitations - which is two years for an oral contract.




Pamela Havird, Esq., then stepped into the case filed an appeal on behalf of her client.

Three unanimous judges on the court of appeals then had this to say about Ms. Havird's appeal:

- "Because the plaintiff has not provided us with a sufficient record of the evidence at trial, she has not met her burden of establishing reversible error on appeal. Thus, we will affirm the judgment in favor of the defendant"

- "From the record presented by Appellant, we know very little."

- "Appellant has not provided a reporter's transcript, an agreed statement, or a settled statement. Nor has she provided any document (e.g., complaint, trial brief, opening statement, closing argument) that sets forth her claims or the facts on which she based them"

- "In disregard of the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.124(b), Appellant failed to include as part of her appendix copies of: the notice of appeal; the notice of entry of the judgment (or order) on appeal; the election to proceed by appendix; and the register of actions."

- "The record on appeal provided by Appellant does not contain a copy of the underlying complaint or otherwise confirm the date on which she filed the action."

- "The problem with Appellant's presentation is that, by not providing an adequate record, Appellant cannot establish as a matter of law that the finding of the date of accrual in the SOD is unsupported by substantial evidence."

- "The limited record Appellant has provided does not contain evidence of the terms of the oral agreement—including specifically the amount(s) of any specific loan(s) and the terms of repayment(s), facts necessary to determine a breach and, accordingly, a date of accrual of the claim."

- "Appellant wrongly suggests that we apply a de novo standard of review ..."

- "While this may have been Appellant's theory of the case at trial, the record on appeal contains no evidence to support this theory."

- " Here, Appellant has forfeited appellate consideration of any potential error associated with the SOD ..."



Lawzilla Commentary and Review: Ouch. In our opinion this is harsh language from the court of appeals. To us it reflects poor legal abilities for handling an appeal.

It is difficult to reconcile the words from the appellate justices with competent appellate lawyering.

If one asserts the judge was wrong in ruling the lawsuit was filed too late, one might think a starting point would be providing a copy of the filed lawsuit proving the date it was filed.

In our opinion the complaint and terms of the alleged oral contract would be important information

However, the court of appeal repeatedly refers to an inadequate record being provided. The justices even say rules of court were disregarded.

In our view a California attorney like Pam Havird should know, and follow, California rules of court.

The justices also said Havird "wrongly" argued what standard of review should apply. We would expect an attorney to know the law.

This is just one case. If one needed an attorney for an appeal one would want to consider what happened in this case.

Pamela Havird was admitted to the California Bar in 1987. Bar Number 129410.

Law Office Pamela E Havird
PO Box 375
La Jolla, California 92038

Law School: Western State University