WasteXperts v. Arakelian Enterprises CA2/4
Filed 3/14/25 WasteXperts v. Arakelian Enterprises CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
WASTEXPERTS, INC., B327712
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV19512) v.
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., dba ATHENS SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Reversed. Frost, Christopher Frost, John D. Maatta, David T. Shackelford and Nicholas Lauber for Plaintiff and Appellant. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Ronald B. Turovsky, Donald R. Brown and Benjamin G. Shatz for Defendant and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION Incivility calls for an apology. Repeated incivility, coupled with inaccuracy in briefing, calls for something more. We reversed the grant of a special motion to strike filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.161 by respondent Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services (Athens). (WasteXperts, Inc. v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 652 (WasteXperts I).) We published that opinion to emphasize the importance of civility, as counsel for appellant WasteXperts, Inc. (WasteXperts) made a lengthy series of distracting and unsupported attacks on opposing counsel and the trial court. (Id. at pp. 656, 666–667.) Here, we necessarily reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Athens under section 425.16, subdivision (c), as Athens is no longer a prevailing defendant under that statute. But, in the interests of justice, we order WasteXperts to bear its own costs for this appeal, and we advise their counsel yet again that hyperbolic and inaccurate briefing only damages an attorney’s credibility and weakens their presentation.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)