In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers.
In a case that has dragged on in excess of five years, self-represented Appellant previously appealed a lower court’s adverse anti-SLAPP ruling and award of attorney’s fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c)(1). In that appeal, the 1/4 DCA affirmed the lower court’s ruling and remanded for an award to Respondent of his reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal – with the lower court awarding $41,580 in attorney’s fees after some apparent reductions.
In his second appeal in this case – Zand v. Sukumar, Case No. A171273 (1st Dist., Div. 4 April 14, 2026) (published) – Appellant not only lost his bid to have reversed the lower court’s $41,580 fees order, but gained an order imposing $10,000 in appeal sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal, and has been remanded back to the lower court for an additional attorney’s fees award against him pursuant to section 425.16(c)(1), as well as determination of a monetary sanction he will pay to Defendant for the reasonable attorney’s fees Defendant incurred in responding to the frivolous appeal – with the monetary sanction not to duplicate the fees awarded on remand under section 425.16(c)(1).
Appellant’s fatal mistake was in making no challenge to the fees award on the ground that the amount was unreasonable or unsupported, and instead making meritless arguments about Respondent’s entitlement to fees under section 425.16(c)(1), rehashing failed arguments from his first appeal, and raising new issues for the first time in this second appeal. Appellant also relied heavily on and misused the voidness doctrine in an attempt to achieve his main goal on appeal of relitigating the April 23, 2021 order that dismissed his cross-complaint for the anti-SLAPP violation – an order that was affirmed in the first appeal. Further, in a blatant disregard for the lower court’s repeated admonitions that the argument was meritless and the multiple monetary sanctions imposed against him for continually making the argument below, Appellant alleged on appeal that Respondent lacked standing to bring the claims in his complaint.
However, Appellant didn’t stop there. He also resorted to character assassination of Respondent and his counsel – contending they were “corrupt,” “criminal,” and “perjurious,” and described the judicial officers who have not ruled in his favor as being untrained and unable to understand “the fundamentals of jurisprudence.”