MARILYN DANIELS VS. ESTHER SIMONE ORENSTZAJN, San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number 17-CIV-01881.



Steven Pabros from the O'Brien law firm is the attorney representing the defendant.




Initially, there was a motion by plaintiff's attorney to compel defendant to produce her expert witnesses for deposition and to provide their documents.

The motion was not opposed and the judge said sanctions were tentatively set for $1860 against defendant and her attorneys.




However, the court records show the tentative ruling was not adopted by the judge as the final ruling. Instead, the hearing about the matter was continued to another date.




There was a subsequent conference with the judge and the hearing was continued a second time.




Again there was a conference with the judge and a sanctions hearing was then set.




At the sanctions hearing the judge levied the original $1860 in sanctions against attorney Steven Pabros, then levied an additional $900 in sanctions related to an expert witness deposition.




According to the public documents in the court file, it appears Mr. Pabros represented to the judge that he would provide his expert witness for deposition on a specific date at plaintiff's counsel's office. This is in a declaration from plaintiff's counsel. Of course, the judge would also be aware of Mr. Pabros representation since he made it to her. Additionally, it appears there was a formal notice for the deposition and its location.

However, on the day of the deposition attorney Pabros said the witness was not appearing at plaintiff's counsel's office.

In court papers Pabros represented to the judge that his legal assistant mistakenly told the expert the deposition was at the expert's office instead of plaintiff's counsel's office.




From Lawzilla's review of the court file it appears this representation by Steven Pabros, Esq., was not made under penalty of perjury. He did not provide any declaration. The legal assistant was not named. There is no declaration from the legal assistant. No documents were provided showing this communication from the assistant to the expert ever took place.

Mr. Pabros' expert was asked about this at his deposition. The expert said no one told him to appear at plaintiff's counsel's office. He said he thought he was told it would be at his office, but there was no identification of who supposedly told him that.

It appears to Lawzilla that Steven Pabros failed to inform his expert about the proper location for the deposition, and failed to confirm that his office had provided the right address.

The transcript of the hearings with the judge is not part of the court file.

Note: Steven Pabros may have caught a break due to a possible mistake by plaintiff's counsel. For the additional sanctions the judge's minute order refers to $900 in fees AND $435 for court reporter fees. But in the final order signed by the judge, likely prepared by plaintiff's counsel, only $900 is referenced.

Compare the minute order from the court and the signed order:









This raises an interesting question. If an attorney (and officer of the court) knows the judge intends to sanction them $1335 but a mistake in a final order only refers to $900, is there an ethical obligation to notify the judge?

Steven Pabros was admitted to the California Bar in 1985. Bar Number 120952.

9528 Wellington Circle
Windsor, California 95492

Law School: Empire College

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.