SHEILA HAWKINS VS VINCENT BRANTLEY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680168    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 47

Sheila Hawkins v. Vincent Brantley

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST VINCIENT [SIC] BRANTLEY AND ATTORNEY HAROLD W. DICKENS III

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sheila Hawkins

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Vincent Brantley, Trustee of the Fydra Brantley Revocable Trust; and Harold W. Dickens, Attorney in Pro Per

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff seeks to quiet title based upon adverse possession. Defendant is her brother, trustee of their mother’s revocable trust.

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendant Vincent Brantley and his attorney Harold W. Dickens, III.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court has read and considered all pleadings filed in connection to this matter. Suffice it to state, this Court has grave concerns about the actions of all counsel and some of the parties.

Counsel are to PERSONALLY APPEAR. No Court Call appearances will be allowed to appear.

Attorney Dickens is to bring sufficient proof that he actually emailed his personal opposition papers to Plaintiff’s counsel, as claimed in his unsigned Proof of Service, and whether email service has been allowed and/or ordered in this case, under the applicable laws. If there is a lack of such proof of service and/or lack of legal authority for email service, this Court will either allow, if requested by Plaintiff, a short continuance of this hearing, so to give Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the opposition filed by Harold W. Dickens III, or in the alternative, striking and disregarding Mr. Dickens’ opposition.

Otherwise, the Court will hear oral argument of the issues presented by the pending motion at the currently-scheduled hearing.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 on the grounds that Defendant and his attorney have “perpetrated a fraud on the Court and Plaintiff by claiming to represent Ms. Fydra Brantley personally and filing documents purporting to be signed by Ms. Fydra Brantley.” (Notice, at p. 2.)

In her most-recent reply, Plaintiff indicates that the opposition filed by Harold W. Dickens III was never served on her. This is borne out by the inadequate “Proof of Service” attached to this opposition, which is unsigned and purports to have been executed on February 27, 2020, even though the specific portion of the proof of service that explains how the document was served states that it was emailed on December 3, 2019. [Which this Court assumes is an error.]

Given that the opposition filed by Harold W. Dickens III is replete with accusations against Plaintiff’s counsel, and given that it is far more detailed than the opposition filed by Defendant, Plaintiff may be entitled to an opportunity to reply to the substance of the Dickens opposition, if it is to be considered by this Court.

Otherwise, at the hearing the Plaintiff must more adequately explain how the sanctions order requested as to the Defendant Vincent Brantley is authorized in view of CCP §§ 128.7 (d)(1) and/or 128.7 (g).

As to the sanctions requested against either Defendant and/or Attorney Dickens, the Plaintiff must more adequately explain whether Plaintiff has fully complied with CCP §§ 128.7 (c)(1) – To wit, what specific “paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial” should have been “withdrawn or appropriately corrected” during the 21 day safe-harbor period. Additionally, whether the Plaintiff has adequately “described the specific conduct alleged to have violated subdivision (b).”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court