Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12K views

    Minute Order

    Uploaded by

    brancron
    The court issued an order to show cause why three attorneys should not be held in contempt or sanctioned. The attorneys are accused of submitting a declaration in their motion for final approval of a class action settlement that contained knowingly false statements about the hours worked by one of the attorneys. Specifically, the declaration stated he worked 185 hours when his detailed timesheet claimed 357 hours. The court found this padding of hours appears intended to inflate the lodestar amount. The attorneys are ordered to show cause why they should not be found in contempt or each pay $10,000 in sanctions for violating their duties as officers of the court. The hearing on the order to show cause and the motion for final approval was continued to a later

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Minute Order

    Uploaded by

    brancron
    12K views3 pages
    The court issued an order to show cause why three attorneys should not be held in contempt or sanctioned. The attorneys are accused of submitting a declaration in their motion for final approval of a class action settlement that contained knowingly false statements about the hours worked by one of the attorneys. Specifically, the declaration stated he worked 185 hours when his detailed timesheet claimed 357 hours. The court found this padding of hours appears intended to inflate the lodestar amount. The attorneys are ordered to show cause why they should not be found in contempt or each pay $10,000 in sanctions for violating their duties as officers of the court. The hearing on the order to show cause and the motion for final approval was continued to a later

    Original Description:

    Minute Order

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court issued an order to show cause why three attorneys should not be held in contempt or sanctioned. The attorneys are accused of submitting a declaration in their motion for final approval of a class action settlement that contained knowingly false statements about the hours worked by one of the attorneys. Specifically, the declaration stated he worked 185 hours when his detailed timesheet claimed 357 hours. The court found this padding of hours appears intended to inflate the lodestar amount. The attorneys are ordered to show cause why they should not be found in contempt or each pay $10,000 in sanctions for violating their duties as officers of the court. The hearing on the order to show cause and the motion for final approval was continued to a later

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    12K views3 pages

    Minute Order

    Uploaded by

    brancron
    The court issued an order to show cause why three attorneys should not be held in contempt or sanctioned. The attorneys are accused of submitting a declaration in their motion for final approval of a class action settlement that contained knowingly false statements about the hours worked by one of the attorneys. Specifically, the declaration stated he worked 185 hours when his detailed timesheet claimed 357 hours. The court found this padding of hours appears intended to inflate the lodestar amount. The attorneys are ordered to show cause why they should not be found in contempt or each pay $10,000 in sanctions for violating their duties as officers of the court. The hearing on the order to show cause and the motion for final approval was continued to a later

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

    COUNTY OF ORANGE
    CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER
    MINUTE ORDER
    DATE: 05/06/2021 TIME: 02:00:00 PM DEPT: CX103
    JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Kirk H. Nakamura
    CLERK: Javier Espino
    REPORTER/ERM: None
    BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Nestor Peraza

    CASE NO: 30-2019-01044791-CU-OE-CXC CASE INIT.DATE: 01/16/2019


    CASE TITLE: Haro Lopez vs. TW Services, Inc.
    CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other employment

    EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: 73510090


    EVENT TYPE: Motion for Approval of Class Settlement
    MOVING PARTY: Miguel Haro Lopez
    CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other for final approval of class action settlement,
    04/14/2021

    EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: 73453281


    EVENT TYPE: Motion for Final Approval

    APPEARANCES

    There are no appearances by any party.

    Tentative Ruling posted on the Internet.

    The Court confirms the tentative ruling as follows:

    Plaintiffs: Haro and the Class

    Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement: Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement

    During its review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval and supporting documents, it appears Plaintiff’s
    counsel violated Business and Professions Code § 6068 and Rules of Professional Conduct 5-200 by
    submitting the Yeremian declaration (ROA 122), which apparently contains knowingly false statements
    regarding the hours expended by Plaintiff’s counsel in this litigation. Specifically, after six pages of the
    “Detailed Time and Task Summary” of Mr. Rothman (Exhibit C to Mr. Yeremian’s Declaration) and the
    total, “357 Hrs.”, the declaration states:

    “I actually worked 185.38 so the above hours are exaggerated to help us meet the lodestar but not
    seeming too far out of line.”

    In other words, it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a declaration (and briefing incorporating
    same) that contains knowingly false statements regarding at least 171.62 hours. (See also Yeremian

    DATE: 05/06/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 1


    DEPT: CX103 Calendar No.
    CASE TITLE: Haro Lopez vs. TW Services, Inc. CASE NO:
    30-2019-01044791-CU-OE-CXC
    Decl. ¶ 15 (“Mr. Rothman from my office expended 357 hours…”) Indeed, Mr. Rothman’s claimed 357
    hours comprise over 60% of the 593 total hours Plaintiff’s counsel has declared under penalty of perjury
    to have expended on this litigation. (Yeremian Decl ¶ 17) (“Mr. Rothman has invested 357 hours…”)
    Notably, and perhaps foreshadowing the deception, counsel falsely reports Mr. Rothman’s hours at the
    specified rate ($450) resulted in “$176,715” in fees, despite three words later stating the total is
    “$160,650”. (Id.)

    The apparent padding of Rothman’s hours (almost doubling the number of hours) to inflate the lodestar
    amount leads the court to question all of the fees sought.

    Contempt committed “in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers” is a
    direct contempt which may be punished summarily. CCP § 1211(a). “It is established that the filing of
    false affidavits may be treated as direct contempt and dealt with summarily by the judge against whom
    and in whose court the offense was committed.” In re Michael C. Ciraolo (1969) 70 Cal. 2d 389, 393. “It
    cannot be questioned that the filing by an attorney of an affidavit containing statements known to be
    false, or with disregard as to their truth or falsity, is contemptuous, as is any other attempt to deceive a
    court.” (Id. at 394.)

    While the Court is within its power to summarily issue a fine and imprisonment, pursuant to CCP §§ 1209
    and 1211, the Court will set an Order to Show Cause why attorneys David Yeremian, Jason Rothman,
    and Walter Haines should not be adjudged in contempt of court and punished accordingly for the
    submission of a perjurious declaration and the willful violation of Business and Professions Code § 6068
    and Rule of Pro-fessional Conduct 5-200 in connection with the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
    Settlement.

    The court further sets an Order to Show Cause why attorneys David Yeremian, Jason Rothman, and
    Walter Haines should not be each sanctioned the amount of $10000 payable to the court under California
    Rules of Court 2.30 for violation of California Rules of Court 9.7, set forth in pertinent part below:

    Rule 9.7. Oath required when admitted to practice law


    In addition to the language required by Business and Professions Code section 6067, the oath to be
    taken by every person on admission to practice law is to conclude with the following: “As an officer of the
    court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.”

    Attorney's violation of duties as officer of the court.


    While it is axiomatic that an attorney must represent a client to the best of the attorney's ability and owes
    a duty to the client to present the case with vigor in a manner that is as favorable to the client as the rules
    of law and professional ethics permit, an attorney is also an officer of the court. Marriage of Anka &
    Yeager (2019) 31 CA5th 1115, 1117, 242 CR3d 884. See Bus & P C § 6067.

    California Rules of Court 9.7, pertaining to the oath required when an attorney is admitted to practice law,
    concludes with, “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy,
    and integrity.” These cautions are intended to remind attorneys that when in the heat of a contentious
    case, their zeal to protect and advance their clients' interests “must be tempered by the professional and
    ethical constraints the legal profession demands,” and, when they fail to do so, sanctions may be
    imposed against them. 31 CA5th at 1117.

    An attorney's statutory duties as an officer of the court, specifically include:

    • Maintaining the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. Bus & P C § 6068(b). See §
    17.41.

    • Employing, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the attorney, only those means that

    DATE: 05/06/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 2


    DEPT: CX103 Calendar No.
    CASE TITLE: Haro Lopez vs. TW Services, Inc. CASE NO:
    30-2019-01044791-CU-OE-CXC
    are consistent with the truth, and never misleading the judge or any judicial officer by artifice or any false
    statement of fact or law. Bus & P C § 6068(d). See Cal Rules of Prof Cond 3.3(a)(1) (attorney must not
    knowingly make any false statement of fact or law to tribunal or fail to correct any false statement of
    material fact or law attorney has previously made to tribunal)

    Before the court will approve the award of any attorney’s fees, it will require detailed billing records for
    each attorney.

    The hearing is set for June 10, 2021 at 2:30 pm in Department CX103. The personal appearance of each
    counsel is required at that time. The Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval is continued to the
    same date.

    Clerk to give notice to Plaintiff, Plaintiff to give notice to all other parties.

    DATE: 05/06/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 3


    DEPT: CX103 Calendar No.

    You might also like