Friday, July 11, 2014

ROBBERY AND TERRORISM

Singh v. Lipworth, No. C073177 (July 3, 2014)

Ouch! Plaintiff in this case got himself sanctioned and declared a vexatious litigant. (Note to those readers seeking to avoid the imposition of such status: Probably best to limit use of bold, underlined, all caps, especially when calling a prior order of the court “ROBBERY AND TERRORISM.”) Anyway, the court here finds that plaintiff forfeited his appeal because his brief “is a rambling and disjointed series of accusations, much of which was lifted word for word from pleadings filed by [plaintiff] in the trial court, and none of which can be considered ‘meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.’” For good measure, it further sanctions plaintiff and his attorney (called out by name in the opinion) for bringing a frivolous appeal. In addition to $7,478.75 in defendant’s attorneys’ fees, plaintiff and lawyer are jointly and severally ordered to pay $7,500 to the clerk of court to compensate for the public resources wasted in processing the appeal.


Affirmed.

No comments:

Post a Comment