SEARCH THIS BLOG

Categories

May 2022

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 31        

« In The News . . . . San Luis Obispo Agrees To Pay $133,880 To Local Litigators Successfully Representing Homeless People Under Private Attorney General Statute | Main | In The News . . . . Ninth Circuit Affirms Civil Rights Fee Recovery For Holding Plaintiff At Gunpoint Too Long And Lake Forest Spent $67,000 In Fees/Costs In Dispute Against Councilman Adam Nick, With More To Come »

March 20, 2013

Comments

Kurt Yap

I would appear that an In Pro Per can circumvent Argaman v. Ratan, 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1175 (1999) and Musaelin v. Adams, 45 Cal.App.4th 512, 514-515, 521 (2009) by use of (Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App4th 1015, 1020, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, -holding that self-represented litigants, whether lawyers or not, cannot recover fees as discovery sanctions, although they may recover reasonable expenses incurred”.)
Anotherwards the facts of the In Pro Per must align with "Opportunity Costs" forgone as a result of abusive discovery tactics taken by opposing party. Typically, the In Prop per must have definitive contractual evidence documented within a Motion on Motion, declaration and Memorandum to make it stick.

The comments to this entry are closed.