HENLEY H. LE VS. ALFRED SOLORIO

Summary: Attorney Steve Lopez represented the plaintiff. Defendant filed a cross-complaint. Lopez successfully had several claims dismissed, but the court gave defendant 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:

Steve Lopez' client, the plaintiff, alleged claims relating to a residential real estate purchase. The defendant had tried to cancel the agreement.

The defendant then filed a cross-complaint against both the plaintiff and Steve Lopez. Numerous claims were alleged, including abuse of process, negligence, and slander of title.

Mr. Lopez' law firm then successfully struck those claims via a special motion to strike. The court also granted a demurrer Lopez filed, but with an an opportunity to "amend the claims asserted in the Cross-Complaint".

The defendant 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.

Attorney Steve Lopez 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 defendant wanted to add new claims he needed to file a motion requesting permission per the rules of California Civil Procedure. Defendant never filed that motion.

Steve Lopez 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 defendant 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 the attorney.

Our first thought is attorney Steve Lopez was probably very unhappy about being sued. It appears to us from what the judge said, he filed the appropriate response, based on the alleged claims, and the court agreed and granted his motion.

Second, the $810 in sanctions is just the fees to have the amended cross-complaint dismissed. That is a very reasonable amount and in our view suggests Steve Lopez was not overbilling the case.

There are three things we believe attorney Steve Lopez did right and accomplished, based on the judge's tentative ruling:

- He was able to get claims in the cross-complaint against him and his client dismissed.

- He was able to get claims in the amended cross-complaint dismisssed.

- He was able to recover legal fees for his client.

Would you hire Steve Lopez to be your attorney?

Although this is only one tentative order, and should be considered in that context, it appears Mr. Lopez did everything right.

We was able to get claims dismissed and he recovered legal fees for this client.

The judge granted all of the fees, which tells us the amount was reasonable.

$375 per hour on April 26, 2018 - Reflected in HENLEY H. LE VS. ALFRED SOLORIO. The judge's tentative order approves a payment to plaintiff's attorney at $375 per hour. From the online case docket Steve Lopez is the attorney for plaintiff.

Steve Lopez was admitted to the California Bar in 2003. Bar Number 224540.

Law Office Steve Lopez
8562 Florence Avenue Suite A
Downey, California 90240

Law School: University of West Los Angeles

Richard Rosiak - Our review of the other attorney in the Le v. Solorio case.