Page 1
C.A. Affirms $88,855 Sanction Imposed on Attorney for Relitigating Decided Matters
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has affirmed the imposition of a $88,855 sanction on a Huntington Beach attorney who has persistently sought redress for elderly clients in a dispute centering on a mobilehome park they formerly occupied, with the justices holding that a judge properly determined that the latest action is precluded by collateral estoppel and is time-barred.
Justice Thomas A. Delaney authored the unpublished opinion which affirms the dismissal of a complaint alleging causes of action including alleged violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act. The dismissal followed the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend.
The RICO allegations, Delaney said, mirror those set forth in a dismissed action filed in federal court.
In imposing the monetary sanction on attorney Patrick J. Evans, Orange Superior Court Judge William D. Claster pointed out:
“The single sale of a mobilehome park has resulted in the filing of 14 Superior Court cases, 11 Court of Appeal cases, 4 California Supreme Court cases, 2 federal district court cases, 2 Ninth Circuit cases, and 2 United States Supreme Court cases.”
In his opinion, filed Monday, Delaney said:
“This case, the most recent in the seemingly endless parade, rests on the same purported wrongdoing and claimed injury raised, in part or in full, at some point in those other contexts. And, a reasonable attorney in Evans’ shoes, performing a reasonable prefiling inquiry into the claims alleged in the complaint, would have determined the claims were time barred under well-established law….”
The chain of events began in 2004 when a homeowners association purchased a mobile home park, with the occupants becoming the owners. Each was assessed $200,000 toward the purchase; those who could not afford that sum were lent the money.
Nine were ejected based on nonpayment on the loans and, represented by Evans, sued the homeowners association.
The case was sent to JAMS for mediation. The alternate dispute resolution firm’s cofounder, retired Court of Appeal John K. Trotter, according to Evans, threatened to tell the judge presiding over the action, Nancy Wieben Stock, that Evans was the cause of a settlement not being reached.
Stock retired; the case was reassigned to then-Judge Robert Moss (now retired); Evans filed a challenge-for-cause to Moss, reasoning that what Trotter presumably told Stock was passed on to Moss; he struck the statement of disqualification; the Court of Appeal denied a writ.
While the original action was pending, Evans filed, on behalf of another client, a complaint aimed at blocking the homeowners association from selling the park to a third party. The case was assigned to Evans; the plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge to the judge; the presiding judge reassigned the case to Judge Gail Andler; Moss struck the challenge and the case was shifted back to him.
Evans has argued, repeatedly in proceedings, that the presiding judge granted the disqualification motion and that Moss unlawfully reinserted himself in the litigation.
Allegations of Complaint
The latest complaint—comprising 157 pages which, with exhibits, comes to 457 pages—was filed in the Orange Superior Court on July 27, 2022. Former mobilehome park residents sued purchasers of the park and others.
The pleading alleges:
“Plaintiffs tried to stop the sale, but a judge ‘fixed’ the case, enabling the fraudulent sale and taking of seniors’ homes and millions in real estate equity,” adding:
“The wrongdoer judge concocted ‘self-re-qualification’ as the device to ‘fix’ the case so he could enable the fiduciary fraudulent sale that stole millions from the seniors.”
It adds:
“The wrongdoer Defendants, by a judge they bribed to fix the sale, acquired the rare coastal parcel at millions of dollars less than its market value.”
Opening Brief
In the opening brief on appeal, Evans wrote:
“The litigation is not about the park sale or attorney Evans. It starts with the undeniable willful judicial misconduct and crime whereby a disqualified judge, contacted by counsel, violated the Appellants’ due process and property rights. It continues with the wholesale refusal and failure of the presiding judge, the appellate courts, the [Commission on Judicial Performance] and the [attorney general] to take any action against the judge crime. Facts form a pattern of Orange County judges not recusing because of JAMS, ruling against Appellants, and then retiring to JAMS. Racketeering is founded on ADR undermining court integrity.” He pointed out that “all retired Div. 3 Orange County Justices, including two that ruled” against his clients have joined JAMS, as did Stock, who, he said, had recommended mediation by Trotter, and Andler who “allowed disqualified and ‘self-requalified’ Judge Moss to take the case from her courtroom docket.”
Delaney’s Opinion
Delaney said that Evans raised nothing new in the latest case and that the demurrer was properly sustained. As to the hefty sanction, he wrote:
“When an attorney files a lawsuit grounded in allegations that were factually or legally dispelled or disposed of in prior litigation related proceedings in which they were involved, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that the attorney has buried their head in the sand and failed to make an objectively reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal basis for the allegations. Another objectively reasonable conclusion that follows is that the lawsuit has been brought for an improper purpose.
“Having thoroughly reviewed the record, including judicially noticed matters, we cannot say there was a manifest miscarriage of justice. Rather, justice appears to have been served.”
He added:
“Over the course of nearly a decade, and in the context of no less than one dozen lawsuits, Evans has filed a veritable mountain of pleadings, declarations, briefs, and other documents, and made oral assertions, expounding grand conspiracy theories involving defendants and nearly any judicial officer, neutral, and government official who has failed to give his clients the relief he feels is due. With each new decision or response received, and each new judicial officer retirement, the conspiracy grows. And upon each legal dead-end reached, there is an attempt to pivot to get around the roadblock.”
Evans Comments
Responding to a request for comments, Evans said in an email yesterday:
“Appellants contend the Opinion shelters clandestine privatization of the courts. The Justices should have recused because Appellants and their counsel had earlier sued the first Orange County Court of Appeal (Fourth Dist. Div. 3) Presiding Justice and JAMS founder Hon. John K. Trotter (Ret.) Thereafter, every retired Orange County Justice and every retired Superior Court Judge on the cases (with one exception) went to JAMS, the world’s largest ‘private judge’ company.”
Repeating an allegation he has made in his pleadings and briefs, he remarked:
“The elderly Appellants assert they endured repeated retaliatory judicial action. For example, a disqualified Superior Court Judge, on vacation, suddenly called in court orders to ‘self-re-qualify’ and ‘fix’ the fiduciary fraudulent sale—at millions under market—of the valuable oceanside seniors’ mobilehome park. Three hours later, the sale closed, but the judge declared nobody requested the call. ‘Self-re-qualification’ was upheld. Meanwhile, the respondent buyers, and their counsel, concealed their long running referral of substantial business to JAMS.”
Evans continued:
“This opinion demonstrates the urgent need for increased judicial officer compensation to counter the lure of private judge retirement sinecure and for “private judging” reform. Attorneys cannot render oversight because of risk of sanctions. Appellants will petition the California Supreme Court.”
The case is Chodosh v. Saunders, G062591.
Earlier Opinion
Div. Three on Dec. 17, 2018, said in an opinion by Acting Presiding Justice William W. Bedsworth rejecting an attack by Evans on a judgment related to the mobilehome park:
“Attorney Evans has engaged in a pattern of inflammatory accusations against any number of judges who have ruled against him, including not only Judge Moss but the Presiding Justice of this Division. Worse, at oral argument in this court, he practically invited us to hold him in contempt for accusing Judge Moss of fixing the result….
He went on to say:
We choose not to set contempt proceedings for Attorney Evans for the calumnies he has casually hurled at Judge Moss, nor for those directed at this court. We conclude he craves the attention of such a hearing more than he would suffer from its result. We choose to deny him that attention and write off his intemperance to an excess of zeal on behalf of vulnerable and elderly clients.”
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company