SEARCH THIS BLOG

Categories

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

« Section 998: Plaintiff, After Lower Court Reduced Award At New Trial Motion Stage, Was Liable For Costs Based On Not Beating Defendants Substantial 998 Offer | Main | In The News . . . . Cobell Indian Land Trust Settlement May Blow Up »

March 04, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e552305fbf88340147e2fdcd15970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Family Law: Non-Compliant Party Under Financial Disclosure Statutes Not Entitled To Award Of Fees As A Sanction:

Comments

Gary Fong

Hi from Gary Fong, the appellant. There is a lot more to this story that led up to this culmination. I have my observations of what happened on my blog at http://bit.ly/inremarriageoffong

To clarify, the non-prevailing attorney at the appeal, Kendra Thomas, was not the attorney who represented the client in the lower court case, nor was she the attorney on record when the reply brief was submitted. Up to then the client had been in pro per. From what I heard from my attorney, Casey Olsen, Ms. Thomas did the best she could being thrown in at the last minute. It was Barbara K. Hammers, Armine Baltazar and Deena B. Younan who represented the client during the trial, and it was Hammers and Baltazar's firm who were in charge of filing the Final Declarations of Disclosure, which they obviously did not do.

Lastly, the published opinion had one fact wrong - that we did not respond to settlement offers. We had, in fact, responded with an offer that Judge Mark A. Juhas ruled as "not unreasonable" while their settlement offer was ruled as "unreasonable".

Look for of an upcoming Vanity Fair article as well as a published memoir. I'm a published author with my memoirs currently in stores.

The comments to this entry are closed.