KATALIN BUTTLER VS. INTERSTATES VANLINES, LLC, San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number 17-CIV-04681.



Trevor Zink, Esq., from the Omni Law Group in San Jose represents the defendant Interstates VanLines, also known as simply "IVL".

He filed a motion to quash the service of summons and to dismiss his client IVL claiming the lawsuit was not properly served. This was stated in Zink's moving papers filed with the court:




It was also referred to by the judge when stating what the motion before the court was about.

The judge denied the motion filed by attorney Zink for his client IVL. In denying the motion the judge said "As to IVL, Defendants’ motion do not even discuss or dispute proper service on IVL."

The judge then further explained that IVL was properly served with the lawsuit and the defendant in attorney Zink's motion "do not deny" the facts about service.




Lawzilla Commentary: How in the world does an attorney file a motion on behalf of their client, but "not even discuss" their client or even "dispute" the issue? In our opinion this is bizarre. It seems incompetent at worst and lazy at best with a failure to pay attention to detail if Trevor Zink was lumping IVL with another defendant for which the motion could reasonably be made.

From reading the judge's comments how do you think the judge rates Trevor Zink's professionalism and abilities?

Trevor Zink was admitted to the California Bar in 2002. Bar Number 218860.

Omni Law Group, LLP
1940 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, California 95125

Law School: Santa Clara University