The requests for Cross sanctions were also Denied. The opposing party is now Alleging Abuse of Process as they claim this was Frivolous regarding Discovery in that Case. They filed a Complaint using this as the Cause of action, after withdrawal of that first action by the Plaintiff due to continued problems w/ first attorney, and advised by a County Bar Member retained to evaluate the case after Lawyer withdrew. New Counsel has been retained for the First case and refiled as advised. The problem is now they have filed a new action as described above and I believe it in itself is frivolous as the Demurrer in both cases was Denied, and motions to Strike Overruled. The Attorney did not follow Rules of court, and the Discovery Motion to Compel Further responses 'denied on those grounds"
I would agree with previous counsel's comments in regard to the need for a comprehensive review of all pleadings before I could begin to formulate a legal opinion. The comment I can make to you that may help clear up some of the confusion is that there is quite a moving standard in regard to what constitutes making a good faith effort to meet and confer. It's not only different county by county, but it is actually different judge by judge. Some are fine with a telephone call, others would insist minimally with a detailed written communication concerning issues. Others will go so far as they want to hear that you had an eyeball to eyeball confrontation as between the attorneys to resolve disputes. I had one judge who went so far as to demand that he wanted not only the eyeball to eyeball attorney confrontation, but he also wanted the clients present.
In some instances where there is no response whatsoever, there is no need to meet and confer. Sounds confusing, it is.
I hope this is helpful.
John N. Kitta
This participating Attorney does not warrant any information provided, nor are we creating an Attorney-Client relationship by providing said information to you on this site. Nothing contained herein is intended to constitute, offer, induce, promise, or contract of any kind. The content provided is presented as a courtesy to be used only for informational purposes and is not represented to be error free. The Law Offices of John N. Kitta makes no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to its answer to inquiries, and such representations and warranties are being expressly disclaimed. Given limited facts, we are attempting to share relevant information concerning this area of the law as a public service.
You're not really asking a specific question. Moreover, no one can really advise you regarding your situation without actually reading the complaint, the motion to compel, the new complaint, and the demurrer. Furthermore, if you have your own attorney, you should listen to your own attorney.
Generally speaking, the Civil Discovery Act has its own sanction provisions, and therefore, the abuse of process cause of action should not apply.
Frank W. Chen has been licensed to practice law in California since 1988. The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. This posting does not create any attorney-client relationship with the author. For specific advice about your particular situation, consult your own attorney.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline