Court of Appeal Also Chastised Respondent For Relying on Non-California Authorities in Attempting to Sustain Result.
Sadr & Barrera, APLC v. Cyriacks, Case No. D058417 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where an appellate court reversed a Civil Code section 1717 attorney’s fees award to a default judgment plaintiff based on in pro per attorney representation in violation of Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 279 (1995).
So far, so good. However, the opinion went further–chastising the respondent law firm for relying on non-California authorities to support its position when Trope was controlling. Here is what the appellate panel had to say: “‘Arguments should always be supported by California authorities whenever there is such authority on point. [Citation omitted.] A party has a duty to ‘[b]e “up front” about cases that appear to be against your position . . . . Your failure to confront unfavorable holdings will be regarded as an attempt to deceive and mislead the court.’ [Citation omitted.]” Wowie, be on guard everyone, and make sure you cite California authority when it exists.