Perreault v. Lebowski CA2/2

Filed 1/6/16 Perreault v. Lebowski CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

KATERINA F. PERREAULT et al., B261082

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC100377) v.

LAWRENCE M. LEBOWSKY, as Special Administrator, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Virginia Keeny, Judge. Affirmed.

Katerina F. Perreault, in pro. per., and for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jankielewicz & Sons, Inc., Lenny Janner; Lauren Longeretta for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

Katerina Perreault, an attorney acting in propria persona, has appealed trial court orders (1) denying her motion to disqualify opposing counsel and (2) imposing sanctions of $1,350 on Ms. Perreault. We affirm and impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal. Review of the Trial Court’s Orders An order denying a motion to disqualify counsel is appealable and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Roush v. Seagate Technology, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 210, 218; People ex re. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1143.) “[D]isqualification is a drastic course of action that should not be taken simply out of hypersensitivity to ethical nuances or the appearance of impropriety.” (Roush, at p. 219; Sheller v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1711.) An attorney cannot be disqualified for a dereliction that has no continuing effect on the judicial proceedings. (Sheller, at p. 1711.) Ms. Perreault’s appeal fails because she did not provide this Court with an adequate record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. The trial court was presented with a motion and, presumably, opposition to the motion. Neither of these documents is contained in appellant’s appendix. The deficient appendix lacks any admissible or comprehensible evidence showing that opposing counsel Lenny Janner “forged” a restraining order.1 The appendix is comprised of disjointed bits and pieces. There are multiple copies of the criminal restraining order against Ms. Perreault; a copy of a civil lawsuit brought by appellant; an attorney bill; and several proofs of service and declarations that are unattached to any motion or opposition papers. Coupled with the deficient appendix is appellant’s repetitive and incoherent brief.