As the old saying goes, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!Attorney Pamela Lauser threw many such stones at me from her glass house in Small Claims Court in Concord, California on my 50th Birthday I posted about earlier this week. I had simply requested a partial refund of the $2,500 I paid for her non-representation services. So here goes. . .
Back in November, 2009 Lawrence Lauser, an architect consultant and husband of Martinez, California attorney Pamela Lauser, suffered a crushing blow when his attorney Frank Sarro was sanctioned. Shortly thereafter Lauser's attorney lost his sanction appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Court. The Federal lawsuit was Lawrence C. Lauser v. City College of San Francisco, et al.
Excerpt from the Opinion:
"Plaintiffs filed a complaint in district court arguing that the College and Unions violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). Plaintiffs alleged that the College wrongfully terminated Lauser and the Unions violated a collective bargaining agreement by failing to represent him in an action against the College. Opposing counsel informed plaintiffs that the claims were unwarranted by existing law, provided specific legal authority, and requested that they withdraw the complaint or be subject to a Rule 11 motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs continued to pursue the suit. The College and Unions moved for dismissal of the complaint and sanctions under Rule 11. The district court dismissed the complaint and imposed sanctions in the amount of $14,774.39 against Sarro. We review for an abuse of discretion, Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.So let me get this straight. Ms. Lauser's husband lost his job, filed a frivolous lawsuit using the Federal Court system in which his attorney Frank Sarro was sanctioned, then having lost his appeal. This means the attorney who viciously lied and attacked me on my birthday, did so while living in a glass house!
In this case, the district court properly imposed Rule 11 sanctions on Sarro because he submitted a complaint that was not warranted by existing law and failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry after he was informed by opposing counsel that the complaint was baseless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11."
As an attorney, when one's husband is unemployed filing a frivolous lawsuit abusing the Federal court system, I think it should be brought to the public's attention. I paid $2,500 for one hearing and I did all the paperwork. I got nothing but a body in court who charged me 7 hours @$300/hr for non-representation resulting from a bait and switch. I was viciously attacked when I asked for a partial refund.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.