ROBERT A GIBB VS LEONARD H FENTON

Summary: Attorney Ronald Zurek of Wesierski and Zurek represents the defendant. Plaintiff served discovery requests but no objections were made by Zurek and no responses were provided by his client. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel.

The judge issued a tentative ruling sanctioning defendant and his counsel $735 and granting the motion to compel. In the final order the judge said responses to the discovery had been made, with a late opposition to the motion. As a result the motion to compel was denied, but sanctions of $735 were granted for causing the motion to be filed.



From the Judge and Court File:

Attorney Ronald Zurek of Wesierski and Zurek represents the defendant in a motor vehicle accident case.

The plaintiff served requests for admissions for Mr. Zurek's client to answer. No timely responses were made.

A party has thirty days to provide responses and an attorney has the same amount of time to make objections, or else the objections are waived. No timely responses or objections were forthcoming from Zurek's office or his client. The judge said relief from the waiver of objections can be obtained if the failure to respond was due to mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.

In the tentative ruling the judge said attorney Ronald Zurek did not file an opposition to the motion. The judge also said no responses to the discovery had been made despite the motion to compel being filed.

The court said it was tentatively ordering the requests for admissions to be deemed admitted and issuing $735 in sanctions against defendant and the attorney.

In the final ruling the judge said responses to the discovery requests had been made along with a late opposition to the motion to compel. The motion was denied as moot but sanctions were still imposed:








Lawzilla Commentary:

The plaintiff's attorney has the option of requesting sanctions against just the defendant, just the attorney, or both, depending on who is at fault. The judge, though, has the final say on who is sanctioned. Here, the plaintiff's attorney believed Ronald Zurek, or at least his law firm, should be sanctioned with their client and the judge agreed.

In this situation we are concerned about what the judge noted were issues with timely legal work:

First, no timely responses to the discovery were made. No objections were made.

Second, from what the judge recited it does not appear there was a claim the failure to provide timely responses was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Third, the judge said the opposition to the motion to compel was late.

Would you hire Ronald Zurek to be your attorney?

This is only one ruling and one should not draw sweeping conclusions from just one case and ruling.

Although sanctions were imposed attorney Zurek was able to get his client's responses done, thus avoiding having facts admitted against his client. This could have been more important than the monetary sanctions.

Ronald Zurek was admitted to the California Bar in 1977. Bar Number 78701.

Wesierski & Zurek LLP
1000 Wilshire Boulevard #1750
Los Angeles, California 90017

Law School: Loyola Law School

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.