Sanson v. Sanson CA4/3

Filed 8/3/23 Sanson v. Sanson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DIANA SANSON,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G060976

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-01017438)

SANDRA SANSON, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent;

ROGER E. NAGHASH,

Objector and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gerald G. Johnston, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Law Offices of Roger E. Naghash and Roger E. Naghash for Plaintiff and Appellant Diana Sanson and Objector and Appellant Roger E. Naghash.1 No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

1 Diana Sanson filed separate briefing which did not conform with California Rules of Court, rule 8.204. We exercise our discretion under rule 8.204(e)(2)(C) to disregard the noncompliance in the interests of justice, and consider Diana Sanson’s submission in conjunction with her counsel’s brief.

INTRODUCTION Appellant attorney asks us to reverse an award of sanctions against him and his client for failure to conduct a required pretrial conference with his adversary. The sanctions were imposed by the trial court, and certainly encouraged by his adversary; appellant finds fault with both. But the person at fault here is undoubtedly appellant’s counsel. It was his unreasonable insistence on an in-person conference that prevented it from taking place, and resulted in a nearly three-month delay of trial. There was no reasonable justification for him to insist on an in-person conference, and we affirm the trial court’s award of sanctions against him. However, we find sanctions against his client were improper. Not only are we fairly certain she played no role in her counsel’s conduct, she was given no notice of pending sanctions. FACTS This matter stems from a petition filed in March 2020 by appellant Diana Sanson against her older sister Sandra, regarding Sandra’s actions as trustee of their late mother’s estate. The details of the trust dispute are irrelevant to our inquiry. A court trial was set for October 19, 2021. Seven days before trial, Sandra’s attorney, David Dunlap Jones, filed a declaration notifying the court that he and Diana’s attorney, appellant Roger Naghash, had yet to conduct an issue conference, as required by The Superior Court of Orange County, Local Rules, rule 317 (Rule 317).2 Jones averred Naghash had contacted him on September 14, 2021, in order to set the issue conference for October 5, 2021, at Naghash’s office in Irvine. Jones had responded the following day that he was agreeable to the proposed date but wanted the conference to be held remotely through an electronic exchange.