Stephenson v Love, San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number 18-CIV-03368.


From the San Mateo online court records it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

One of the parties retained the Murphy, Pearson, Bradley and Feeney law firm to represent it's interests in a case that was consolidated with another lawsuit.

One of the primary attorneys for the defense was Suzie Tagliere.




The attorneys served numerous discovery requests to another party, but they were not responded to.

A meet and confer letter about the missing discovery was sent, but also not responded to.

A motion to compel was filed and attorney Suzie Tagliere submitted a supporting declaration about her personal knowledge of the events.







The judge, though, denied the motion because it was not served on all parties.

The denial was "without prejudice" so the Murphy Pearson firm could file another motion.




Another motion was filed. Attorney Tagliere again provided a declaration in support of the motion.




Suzie Tagliere declared she and other attorneys in the firm were billing at $300 per hour in similar cases, but did not say what their rate, if any, was in this case.

She said another attorney at the Murphy Pearson law firm actually prepared the motion.

$2400 in attorney's fees were sought as sanctions, in addition to the $60 court filing fee, for a total of $2460.




The judge ordered the other party to respond to the discovery and requests for admissions were deemed admitted.

The judge also ordered repayment of the $60 court filing fee as a sanction.

However, the court denied the recover of all $2400 in claimed attorney's fees.

The judge ruled attorney Tagliare's declaration was not "competent evidence" because another attorney prepared the motion and there was no declaration from that other attorney.

We suspect attorney Suzie Tagliare and the Murphy Pearson firm would agree this is not a good look.

The request to recover attorney fees was twice lost, in our opinion, from attorney incompetence.

First, there was a failure to include all parties on the proof of service for the motion.

Second, the attorneys were unable to submit "competent evidence" to the court to support their fee claim.

Our opinion of what the judge ruled is that the attorney's failed to understand the rules of evidence and what was required to submit "competent" evidence for the judge to consider.

If the attorneys at the Murphy Pearson firm cannot even get their own legal fees properly submitted to the court for consideration, how do you think they will do in a contested setting at trial trying to get important evidence for their clients to be considered?

Suzie Tagliere was admitted to the California Bar in 2012. Bar Number 286849.

Murphy, Pearson, Bradley and Feeney
88 Kearny Street Floor 10
San Francisco, California 94108

Law School: University of San Francisco

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.