Vision en Analisis y Estrategia v. Erwin Legal CA4/3

Filed 2/17/22 Vision en Analisis y Estrategia v. Erwin Legal 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

VISIÓN EN ANÁLISIS Y ESTRATEGIA, S.A. DE C.V. et al., G059669 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00756302) v. OPINION ERWIN LEGAL, P.C. et al.,

Defendants;

ALIR SETTLEMENTS, LLC et al.,

Objectors and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sherri L. Honer, Judge. Affirmed. Respondents’ request for appellate attorney fees granted. Beitchman & Zekian and David P. Beitchman for Objectors and Appellants.

Mayer Brown, Neil M. Soltman and C. Mitchell Hendy for Plaintiffs and Respondents. * * * The sole issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s $6,750 1 sanctions award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 against several nonparties who objected to two postjudgment document subpoenas and then unsuccessfully opposed motions to compel compliance. Finding no error, we affirm the sanctions order. We also award respondents their appellate attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the trial court.

FACTS As detailed in our prior opinion (Visión en Análisis etc. et al. v. Erwin Legal, P.C. et al. (Aug. 6, 2021, G058265, G058367, G058428) [nonpub. opn.]), the plaintiffs in this case are two foreign investment firms—Visión en Análisis y Estrategia, S.A. de C.V. and Capitaliza-T Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada de Capital Variable (collectively, Plaintiffs). In 2011, Plaintiffs purchased an interest in a family trust that owned a $4 million universal life insurance policy insuring the life of an octogenarian. About a year later, Plaintiffs hired defendant Christopher Erwin—an attorney, life settlement broker, and a member of defendant Erwin Legal, PC—to help them sell that interest. To broker the sale, Erwin needed to obtain information about the policy premiums and the insured’s medical status so he could determine the policy’s value. Neither Erwin nor Plaintiffs could obtain that information directly due to privacy rules, so Erwin asked his client and business contact, defendant David Mickelson Insurance