JUDY PORTONE v. AVENUE 31

Attorney Stanley Stone is the attorney for the plaintiff.

Stanley Stone has been practicing law for more than 50 years. He is one of the oldest attorneys in California. In this ruling the judge said the court was going to sanction attorney Stone, and his client, for $4134.04. It is a massive sanction.

On the other hand, the judge also ordered the other attorney to eat $4134.04 in costs, effectively sanctioning him the same amount.

From the judge this is what happened:

Attorney Stan Stone represents the plaintiff. The plaintiff lives in Chicago but was suing in Los Angeles.

For about two months there were discussions amongst various attorneys about taking the deposition of Mr. Stone's client, and whether it would be in Chicago or Los Angeles. No agreement could be reached on a date or place.

Finally, defendant noticed plaintiff's deposition in Chicago for a specific date. Stanley Stone, Esq., said it was not a good date, but did not provide alternative dates. So the defense attorney served another deposition notice in Chicago for another day, and also scheduled a medical examination.

Then Mr. Stone had another problem with dates. The defendant's attorney said he would reschedule, but needed Stone's available dates.

But then heard nothing from Stanley Stone.

The defendant's attorney left a voice mail about the issue, but Stanley Stone never responded and never denied receiving it.

The Stone and Stone law firm then failed to make any objection to the deposition or to the medical examination.

The deposition then proceeded, but neither Stanley Stone nor his client appeared. They also failed to appear for the medical examination.

The judge then reviewed the situation and declarations from the attorneys about what happened.

Attorney Stanley Stone declared under penalty of perjury that there was a stipulated agreement to continue the deposition to another date. But the judge said the stipulation does not say that. The judge also noted the stipulation was not signed by the court and a pending trial date effectively meant the deposition could not be continued.



The judge also said attorney Stone's declaration was "vague" about the agreement, leaving out details, and that there was no corroborating evidence.



The court said Staney Stone deserved to be sanctioned. But since the defendant attorney had failed to confirm the deposition would actually occur before incurring the expense to fly to Chicago, the sanctions would be reduced.

The defendant incurred $8268.08 in costs. The judge said the parties and their attorneys would have to split the amount.

"Only" $4134.04 in sanctions would be issued against plaintiff and Mr. Stone. Defendant and its attorney had to "eat" the other $4134.04 they spent.

That is a massive amount. One of the largest sanctions orders we have seen.

Would you hire Stanley Stone to be your attorney?

We have concerns. $4134.04 is a large amount of sanctions. The judge said Mr. Stone would object to deposition dates but not provide alternative days. He was not responsive to attempts by the other attorney to get an agreeable date.

The judge said Stone's declaration was vague, omitted details, did not have supporting evidence, and a stipulation he referred to did not actually say what Stone claimed it said.

The lack of detail, mis-stating an agreement, and being unresponsive, in addition to his age, is alarming in the various types of issues mentioned by the judge.

All we can find from the Bar for Stanley Stone is a Post Office Box. It is unclear if he even has a law office.

On the other hand, the judge, in our view, basically said the other attorney was also at fault and that is why the $8000+ in costs were being split between the parties and their attorneys.

Mr. Stone was successful in preventing his client from having to pay the full $8268.08.

was admitted to the California Bar in 1965. Bar Number 37037.

Stone and Stone
PO Box 261727
Encino, California 91426-1727

Law School: Wayne State

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.