HENLEY H. LE VS. ALFRED SOLORIO

Summary: Attorney Richard Rosiak represented the defendant and filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff. Plaintiff successfully had several claims dismissed, but the court gave Rosiak an opportunity to amend the claims. Instead of just amending, new causes of action were alleged in an amended cross-complaint.

The judge tentatively ruled adding new claims was "frivolously filed solely to cause unnecessary delay" and justified sanctions.



From the Judge:

Richard Rosiak represented the defendant against claims arising from a residential real estate purchase. The defendant had tried to cancel the agreement.

Rosiak, for his client, then filed a cross-complaint against both the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney. Numerous claims were alleged, including abuse of process, negligence, and slander of title.

Plaintiff then successfully struck those claims via a special motion to strike. The court also granted a demurrer with an an opportunity to "amend the claims asserted in the Cross-Complaint".

Attorney Rosiak then filed an amended cross-complaint. Included were "four new causes of action" including claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiff then successfully had those new claims dismissed because the judge's order did not give permission to add brand new claims into the lawsuit.

The judge noted that if Rosiak wanted to add new claims he needed to file a motion requesting permission per the rules of California Civil Procedure. Rosiak never filed that motion.

The plaintiff then filed a motion for sanctions.

The judge said the amended complaint was "frivolous".

The judge said based on the evidence before the court, and after reviewing the court's file, the amended complaint Rosiak filed was done "frivolously filed solely to cause unnecessary delay".

The judge further said: "There is no rational argument based upon the evidence or law to support the notion that [defendant] acted properly in filing new causes of action without leave of Court."

The judge said in the tentative ruling said $810 in sanctions were to be awarded.



Lawzilla Commentary:

Initially, the order we have republished is a tentative order we are working to confirm. Unfortunately, the court documents for this case are not available online. We have not seen the pleadings or declaration filed by attorney Richard Rosiak.

Our first thought based on what the judge said is that it is risky to sue an attorney, especially for claims like abuse of process and slander of title. The reason is that a SLAPP motion to strike could be filed for which sanctions in the form of payment of legal fees are awarded. In our opinion, just based on the titles of the causes of action, and filing against a party's attorney, a competent attorney would have known of the risk of sanctions.

Second, the $810 in sanctions is just the fees to have the amended cross-complaint dismissed. From the court docket, and nature of the claims, it is likely there is another motion (or one will be filed) for fees relating to the initial motion to have the claims stricken.

Third, Mr. Rosiak is fortunate the sanctions amount is less than $1000. We believe sanctons of more than $1000 would have automatically triggered a report to the State Bar for investigation and discipline that could include the loss of a law license to practice.

There are two things we believe attorney Richard Rosiak did wrong, based on the judge's tentative ruling:

- Filing improper claims against the plaintiff and his attorney.

- Filing new claims in an amended complaint without court permission.

Would you hire Richard Rosiak to be your attorney?

The judge is most familiar with what happened in the case, the court's own orders, and the demeanor and actions of the attorneys.

Court orders are typically polite, as here, but still the judge's comments are biting and worth considering.

When a judge says an attorney violated a court order, filed a frivolous complaint, and did not present rational argument, in our opinion it speaks volumes about Richard Rosiak's competency and legal abilities.

With the judge weighing in on Mr. Rosiak like this, would you really want the Rosiak law firm to be representing you before this judge in the Los Angeles court?

On the other hand, this is only one tentative order, and should be considered in that context.

Richard Rosiak was admitted to the California Bar in 1989. Bar Number 141430.

Richard J Rosiak & Associates
8137 3rd Street Floor 1
Downey, California 90241

Law School: Western State University

Steve Lopez - Our review of the other attorney in the Le v. Solorio case.

Ton v Caldarescu - Richard Rosiak filed lawsuit for plaintiff dismissed by court for lack of prosecution.

Guzman v Guzman - Richard Rosiak filed lawsuit for plaintiff dismissed by judge after defendant filed a special demurrer to the complaint, which the court granted without leave to amend.

Medina v. Michael - Richard Rosiak filed lawsuit for plaintiff. Docket says case was arbitrated and judgment made. Plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which suggests to us Rosiak lost the arbitration.

Preet v. Gill - Richard Rosiak filed lawsuit for plaintiff dismissed by court for lack of prosecution.