Page 3
Beverly Hills Lawyer Must Pay Mark Geragos, Firm, $23,000 for Discovery Abuses—C.A.
Chavez’s Opinion Rejects Assaults on Superior Court Orders
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Beverly Hills attorney who was ordered to pay three discovery sanctions totaling $22,933 to celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos and his firm has failed to convince the Court of Appeal for this district that the award is infirm.
Justice Victoria M. Chavez of Div. Two wrote the unpublished opinion, filed Wednesday. It finds no merit in arguments put forth by Ron A. Rosen Janfaza who is representing four persons in a malpractice action against Geragos and his firm Geragos & Geragos, APC.
The case is assigned to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kristin S. Escalante. Geragos filed more than 30 motions to compel and Escalante routed the matters to a referee, retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Allen White, who, on each of three dates, in considering motions, recommended slapping Janfaza with sanctions.
Three retired judges, sitting on assignment, each adopted—or “rubber stamped,” according to Janfaza in his opening brief on appeal—one of White’s recommendations while Escalante was doing a stint on the Court of Appeal for this district as a pro tem.
Limited Appealability
In that brief, Janfaza, representing himself (in the names of his clients as appellants), said:
“This appeal arises from Orders directing payment of monetary sanctions by a party or an attorney for a party if the amount exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000) and is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure §904.1, subdivision (a)(12).”
Chavez pointed out in Wednesday’s opinion that a sanction recommended by White on April 4, 2023, was in the amount of $4,043, declaring:
“Since this is less than the $5,000 threshold, this order is not appealable and we decline to consider appellants’ appeal from it.”
As to a $9,231.50 sanction and one in the amount of $9,658.50, the justice said there was no abuse of discretion in imposing either penalty. Janfaza argued in his brief:
“Sanctions should not have been awarded since no Opposition to the Motions to Compel were filed.”
Chavez responded:
“[A]ppellants did not address California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, which authorizes a court to award sanctions in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even though no opposition to the motion was filed.”
Mootness Asserted
After compelled discovery was sought, Janfaza provided responses. The lawyer asserted:
“Plaintiffs responded to written discovery making the Motions to Compel Moot.”
There is no mootness, Chavez said, explaining:
“Again, appellants did not address California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, which authorizes monetary sanctions when supplemental responses are served after the motion to compel is filed. Further, a trial court has discretion to impose sanctions for the misuse of the discovery process even when the underlying discovery dispute is resolved.”
Sanctions Justified
Finding ample justification for the sanctions, Chavez pointed out:
“Here, the sanctions imposed on appellant’s counsel were based on findings that he misused discovery by making unmeritorious objections to discovery, making evasive responses, violating the court’s discovery order, deliberately misrepresenting the date on which responses were served, and engaging in dilatory conduct designed to delay and impede discovery and trial preparation.”
Geragos filed no respondent’s brief and Janfaza did not seek to orally argue his position.
A jury trial in the malpractice action is scheduled to start on Sept. 9.
The case is Hershey v. Geragos & Geragos, B330853.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company