Plaintiff’s Initial Non-Binding Arbitration Win Of $1,325 Was Vacated In Superior Court, So Plaintiff Hired A Paralegal Years Later To Help Draft A Complaint That Ultimately Invited A Motion To Strike.
Corey v. Mudgett, Case No. D077532 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 22, 2021) (unpublished) does not directly involve the appeal of an attorney fees issue, but began with a $1,500 attorney fees dispute, and we discuss as it serves as a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of self-representation in complex legal issues.
Plaintiff had paid attorney defendant $1,500 to file her bankruptcy petition, but discharged defendant before he filed the petition, and hired a different attorney. When plaintiff requested a refund of the $1,500, defendant refused – claiming that, pursuant to his fee agreement, the $1,500 was a “true retainer earned upon signing this agreement.” Plaintiff then initiated and won non-binding arbitration – resulting in a $1,325 award in her favor. However, defendant successfully filed a superior court action to have the arbitration award vacated for lack of jurisdiction – asserting only the bankruptcy trustee for plaintiff’s bankruptcy case could pursue plaintiff’s claim – and was awarded $701 in costs. This was paid four years later by plaintiff’s mother when defendant’s abstract of judgment recorded against plaintiff was somehow holding up mother’s refinance loan – presumably because plaintiff previously shared in ownership of her mother’s home. Defendant accepted the original $701 – waiving interest and postjudgment costs – but it did not end there.
Alleging mother had paid the $701 under “duress, coercion and manipulation” to obtain a release of “the fraudulent lien,” plaintiff and her mother then hired a paralegal to assist in drafting a complaint against defendant. All of the claims in the complaint were inextricably related to the protected activity of the fee arbitration proceedings and invited a motion to strike. Defendant successfully obliged, and was awarded $1,410.40 in costs and $15,600 in attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1) (fee-shifting provision entitling prevailing SLAPP defendant to fees and costs recovery). During the hearing on fees, plaintiff admitted to the trial court that she had failed to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike because she did not know she could do so, or that such opposition should be submitted in writing (although the trial court considered her late filed opposition and allowed her oral argument at the anti-SLAPP hearing). Again, plaintiff did not appeal the judgment re defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion or attorney’s fees award. However, plaintiff did unsuccessfully appeal the trial court’s denial of her postjudgment motions to have the judgment vacated and for leave to file an amended complaint.
In a 3-0 opinion, authored by Justice Dato, the 4/1 DCA had this to say, “Nonlawyers who represent themselves in a civil case involving complicated legal principles are usually at a considerable disadvantage, as would be anyone attempting to perform a complex task without the necessary training, education, and experience. This case sadly illustrates these perils in the anti-SLAPP context.”
Comments