On October 18, 2007 a
Order to Show Cause
was filed
involving a dispute between
Barish, Andrew M,
Barish, Kathleen M,
Barrager, Stephen,
Cederwall, Sandraline,
Brooks 2006 Charitable Remainder Unitrust Dated,
Brooks, Cahterine S.S.,
Brooks, Steven D.,
Kaul, Bill,
Markoff Structural Pest Control Company,
Morton, Jay,
and
Brooks 2006 Charitable Remainer Unitrust Dated,
Brooks, Cahterine S.S.,
Brooks, Catherine S.S.,
Brooks, Steven D,
Brooks, Steven D.,
Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive,
Jay Morton Real Estate, A Business Entity Of,
Morton, Jay,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
VICE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-28-2012 9:28 am
Case Number: CGC-07-468359
Filing Date: Mar-28-2012 9:27
Filed by: DANIAL LEMIRE
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03553348
ORDER
KATHLEEN M BARISH et al VS. STEVEN D BROOKS
001C03553348
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.San Francisco County Superior Court
MAR 28 2012
CLEA OF AE COURT
By: Lacy é
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
KATHLEEN BARISH, ET AL.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN BROOKS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
Case No. CGC — 07-468359
ORDER DIRECTED TO PHIL NEAL
WALKER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
(CCP § 177.5)
On March 19, 2012 I issued a Memorandum Order which noted the apparent
violation of one of my earlier orders by Phil Walker, who was acting as counsel for cross
defendant Morton.
On February 24, 2021, I had met in open court with the attorneys for the parties to
schedule argument on pending motions. Mr Walker asked me if he could file further
oppositions. I told him he could not: the time for that was long past. Indeed, other
parties had earlier filed notices observing that the motions were unopposed. Mr Walker
then asked if he could file something on the motion to recuse Judge Mason. I said he
could. In response to my written tentative, I did also expect an answer to the one
question I there posed to the parties, which was about the contractual basis for attorneys’fees against plaintiffs in favor of Brooks. In response to my written tentative ruling Mr
Walker made a series of entirely unauthorized filings. He filed an ‘opposition to
tentative decision’ six times- on March 6, March 8, March 12, March 13 (twice), and
March 14. These consisted of, among other things, repetitious, overlapping argument.
These ‘oppositions to the tentative’ appear to have been filed in direct violation
of my order not to file further oppositions. My order appears to have been lawful,
because the ‘oppositions to the tentative’ are not contemplated by the California Rules of
Court or any other law. Mr Walker’s actions appear to have no good cause or substantial
justification.
It therefore appears that Mr Walker is subject to sanctions under CCP § 177.5, in
an amount up to $1500.00. I may be required to report the matter to the State Bar. See,
for example, B&P § 6103; B&P § 6086.7(a), (c).
Mr Phil Neal Walker shall show cause why these sanctions should not be imposed
at 10.00 a.m. in Department 608 of this Court on Friday Apri] 20, 2012. The Court will
accept and consider any written submissions from any party, including Mr Walker,
which is filed, served with a courtesy copy provided to Department 608, not later than
Monday 16 April, 2012.
So ordered.
Dated: March 28, 2012 A TN
© Curtis EA. Karnow
Judge Of The Superior CourtCGC-07-468359 KATHLEEN M BARISH et al VS. STEVEN D BROOKS
1, the undersigned, certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of Califomia, County Of San Francisco and not
a party to the above-entitled cause and that on March 28, 2012 I served the foregoing on each counsel of record or
party appearing in propria persona by causing a copy thereof to be enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope and
deposited in the United States Postal Service mail box located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102-
4514 pursuant to standard court practice.
Date: March 28, 2012 By: DANIAL LEMIRE
THOMAS J, LOSAVIO, Esq. DENNIS F. MORIARTY, Esq.
DAVID LYNCH, Esq. Cesari, Werner & Moriarty
Low Balt & Lynch 360 Post St, Fifth Floor
505 Montgomery St, 7 Floor San Francisco, CA 94108
San Francisco, CA 94111
JOEL K, BELWAY, Esq.
PHIL WALKER, Esq 2356 Montgomery St, Ste. 668
250 King St, #414 San Francisco, CA 94104-2910
San Francisco, CA 94114
HOWARD JANSSEN, Esq.
GARY DENNIS RODGERS Janssen Doyle LLP
Cresswell, Echeguren Rodgers & Noble 140 Brookwood Road, Suite 102
180 Grand Ave, Suite 140 Orinda, CA 94563
Oakland, CA 94612
TERILYNN TERESE PEREZ, Esq.
KEITH D. YANDELL, Esq. Clapp Moroney Bellagamba Vucinich
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory 1111 Bayhill Dr, Ste. 300
3 Embarcadero Center, 12" Floor San Bruno, CA 94066
San Francisco, CA 94111-4074
Certificate of Service — «ServiceType» Form C00005010
Preview
VICE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-28-2012 9:28 am Case Number: CGC-07-468359 Filing Date: Mar-28-2012 9:27 Filed by: DANIAL LEMIRE Juke Box: 001 Image: 03553348 ORDER KATHLEEN M BARISH et al VS. STEVEN D BROOKS 001C03553348 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.San Francisco County Superior Court MAR 28 2012 CLEA OF AE COURT By: Lacy é Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO KATHLEEN BARISH, ET AL., Plaintiff, vs. STEVEN BROOKS, ET AL., Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS Case No. CGC — 07-468359 ORDER DIRECTED TO PHIL NEAL WALKER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED (CCP § 177.5) On March 19, 2012 I issued a Memorandum Order which noted the apparent violation of one of my earlier orders by Phil Walker, who was acting as counsel for cross defendant Morton. On February 24, 2021, I had met in open court with the attorneys for the parties to schedule argument on pending motions. Mr Walker asked me if he could file further oppositions. I told him he could not: the time for that was long past. Indeed, other parties had earlier filed notices observing that the motions were unopposed. Mr Walker then asked if he could file something on the motion to recuse Judge Mason. I said he could. In response to my written tentative, I did also expect an answer to the one question I there posed to the parties, which was about the contractual basis for attorneys’fees against plaintiffs in favor of Brooks. In response to my written tentative ruling Mr Walker made a series of entirely unauthorized filings. He filed an ‘opposition to tentative decision’ six times- on March 6, March 8, March 12, March 13 (twice), and March 14. These consisted of, among other things, repetitious, overlapping argument. These ‘oppositions to the tentative’ appear to have been filed in direct violation of my order not to file further oppositions. My order appears to have been lawful, because the ‘oppositions to the tentative’ are not contemplated by the California Rules of Court or any other law. Mr Walker’s actions appear to have no good cause or substantial justification. It therefore appears that Mr Walker is subject to sanctions under CCP § 177.5, in an amount up to $1500.00. I may be required to report the matter to the State Bar. See, for example, B&P § 6103; B&P § 6086.7(a), (c). Mr Phil Neal Walker shall show cause why these sanctions should not be imposed at 10.00 a.m. in Department 608 of this Court on Friday Apri] 20, 2012. The Court will accept and consider any written submissions from any party, including Mr Walker, which is filed, served with a courtesy copy provided to Department 608, not later than Monday 16 April, 2012. So ordered. Dated: March 28, 2012 A TN © Curtis EA. Karnow Judge Of The Superior CourtCGC-07-468359 KATHLEEN M BARISH et al VS. STEVEN D BROOKS 1, the undersigned, certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of Califomia, County Of San Francisco and not a party to the above-entitled cause and that on March 28, 2012 I served the foregoing on each counsel of record or party appearing in propria persona by causing a copy thereof to be enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope and deposited in the United States Postal Service mail box located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102- 4514 pursuant to standard court practice. Date: March 28, 2012 By: DANIAL LEMIRE THOMAS J, LOSAVIO, Esq. DENNIS F. MORIARTY, Esq. DAVID LYNCH, Esq. Cesari, Werner & Moriarty Low Balt & Lynch 360 Post St, Fifth Floor 505 Montgomery St, 7 Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 San Francisco, CA 94111 JOEL K, BELWAY, Esq. PHIL WALKER, Esq 2356 Montgomery St, Ste. 668 250 King St, #414 San Francisco, CA 94104-2910 San Francisco, CA 94114 HOWARD JANSSEN, Esq. GARY DENNIS RODGERS Janssen Doyle LLP Cresswell, Echeguren Rodgers & Noble 140 Brookwood Road, Suite 102 180 Grand Ave, Suite 140 Orinda, CA 94563 Oakland, CA 94612 TERILYNN TERESE PEREZ, Esq. KEITH D. YANDELL, Esq. Clapp Moroney Bellagamba Vucinich Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory 1111 Bayhill Dr, Ste. 300 3 Embarcadero Center, 12" Floor San Bruno, CA 94066 San Francisco, CA 94111-4074 Certificate of Service — «ServiceType» Form C00005010