Buus v. Khoilian CA4/3

Filed 11/5/24 Buus v. Khoilian CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

WILLIAM L. BUUS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063112

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020- 01167397) RUBEN KHOILIAN, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly A. Knill, Judge. Reversed. William L. Buus, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. * * * This is an appeal from an order sanctioning attorney William L. Buus after his client refused to travel from New York to California for a trailing trial date. The court summarily sanctioned Buus $1,500.00. We conclude the sanctions order was not supported by substantial evidence, and

we therefore reverse the order. We also direct the clerk of the court to send a copy of this opinion to the State Bar of California. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We need not belabor the underlying facts. In 2020, Buus’s client, plaintiff Samarian Products LLC (Samarian), filed this case against several defendants, including Ruben Khoilian, for breach of contract, fraud, and several other causes of action. On September 8, 2023, during a remote hearing, counsel answered ready for trial. The case was referred to a different department for trial assignment as a one-day bench trial. The court ordered that the case would begin trailing on September 11 through September 14. The matter was placed on one-hour call. “Counsel/parties are placed on call to remain ready to respond to phone calls from the court immediately (no later than within 15 minutes) and be ready to appear upon 1 hours’ notice to commence trial. Counsel/parties have provided the Clerk with contact numbers that will assure receipt of trial assignment notification and immediate response. [¶] Failure to comply may subject counsel to sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.”1 According to the minute order, no court reporter was present. Although every other minute order in the record is accompanied by a clerk’s certificate of mailing/electronic service, there is not such a certificate for the September 8 minute order. The next minute order is dated September 11, at 9:21 a.m., from the same department that issued the September 8 order. There were no appearances. A judge had become available to conduct the trial. Buus had contacted the clerk and advised that Samarian’s representative was currently