ESTATE OF KEYON KILES VS 1612 PCH LLC

Summary: Attorney Matthew Trostler represented defendants. He filed a motion for sanctions against plaintiff.

The judge denied Trostler's motion, and then issued sanctions for filing the motion, ruling it was procedurally improper.



From the Judge and Court File:

The online court records show Matthew Trostler represented the defendants. The motion filed with the court relating to this matter was done by Matthew Trostler, and he is the attorney who filed a declaration under penalty of perjury indicating personal knowledge about these events.



The judge said Trostler sought sanctions under two laws. The court said Trostler's client was not entitled to sanctions under one statute because it only applied to lawsuits filed about a decade before (in 1994). Attorney Trostler and his law firm were filing a motion per a law that was outdated by about ten years.

The judge further said the California Supreme Court had "defined a clear end" to use of the statute, and that was December 31, 1994.



For the second statute the judge denied Trostler's motion because it was procedurally improper. The law requires a motion to be served on the plaintiff and only after 21 days can it be filed with the court. Matt Trostler, however, had the motion served and filed on the same date.

The judge said "contrary to Defendants' argument" Trostler's motion was expressly filed per this statute. It said so on the notice for the moving papers.



In a tentative ruling the judge said $1687.50 in sanctions were appropriate.

After oral argument the judge issued a final ruling imposing $750 in sanctions against defendants and their counsel.






Lawzilla Commentary:

In our opinion we have a couple concerns about attorney actions based on what the judge said in the ruling.

First, that Matthew Trostler filed a motion per an outdated law. One outdated by about a decade.

Second, our interpretation of the judge's tentative ruling is that an apparent misrepresentation was being made to the court about what law the motion was filed under. The judge said "Contrary to Defendants' argument in Reply". To us that means attorney Matthew Troster's reply brief claimed X was true, but the judge said X was not true. All the judge had to do was point to the attorney's own papers to show he was wrong.

The court order refers to sanctions against "counsel". We believe, since Trostler was apparently employed by Borton Petrini, that the law firm is responsible to pay the sanctions. Since lawyer Trostler was responsible for the motion, we view him as a responsible attorney whose actions resulted in sanctions.

In our opinion the issues raised by the judge involve competency and credibility issues for an attorney that create an issue to be considered before retaining this person as legal counsel.

Would you hire Matthew Trostler to be your attorney?

This is only one order and should be considered in that context. There are good and bad aspects.

The bad parts in our opinion are filing a motion per an law outdated by a decade, and filing a motion without following the procedural requirements in the law. And then there is the judge having to say "contrary" to the attorney's argument, his own motion said he was wrong.

The good is that after oral argument Trostler was able to get the sanctions reduced from a proposed $1687.50 down to $750.

Matthew Trostler was admitted to the California Bar in 1991. Bar Number 156762.

Peterson, Poll & Trostler
915 West Imperial Highway, Suite 150
Brea, California 92821

Former information (at time the Kiles case motion was filed):
Borton Petrini LLP
626 Wilshire Blvd # 975
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Law School: California Western School of Law