DeRose v. Heurlin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
On our own motion we impose sanctions against Attorney John M. Heurlin and his law firm (Heurlin) for filing and prosecuting a frivolous appeal. We conclude Heurlin had improper motives in seeking (1) to delay the effects of an adverse judgment and (2) to cover up his mishandling of client trust funds and his dishonesty before the trial court. Heurlin compounded the deception at oral argument after notice of this court’s consideration of sanctions against him. He was inexcusably unable or unwilling to respond forthrightly to our questions regarding his conduct.
Proce…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Pierotti v. TorianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Keitel v. HeubelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Friends of Panamint Valley v. KempthorneDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2007
- Lasalle v. Vogel, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Fisher v. State Pers. Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Bias v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.