Another Small Win for Laura Lynn Hammett: Pro Se Litigant Perseveres [Updated, Again]
I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.
I recommend you don’t try this at home.
So odd. Judge Janis Sammartino granted attorney fees against me on an anti-SLAPP motion in California. She said that since I voluntarily dismissed the suit, my opponent was the prevailing party. Linda Lopez agreed, and denied my motion for reconsideration of attorney fees.
But I dismissed the suit because it was on behalf of a legal entity, and I am not an attorney. I am not allowed to advocate for anyone but myself. The cause of action was void, a complete nullity.
I filed an appeal. My opponents responded. I replied. Months went by.
Suddenly, Judge Linda Lopez filed an order denying attorney fees. I was perplexed. I thought Judge Lopez was changing her mind, based on arguments I made at appeal, and that she lacked jurisdiction.
Take a moment. Breathe.
Look through the docket. Ah Ha. The explanation is that the attorney defendants asked for a second batch of attorney fees and their motion was fully briefed about 10 months ago. I was sick as a dog then. I could barely lift my head off the pillow. I received Judge Linda Lopez’s order dismissing my case and never noticed that she failed to address the attorney fees motions pending at the same time.
The order denying attorney fees is downloadable below. It is your FREE Doc of the Day.
I can’t get too excited. Judge Lopez still refused to recognize that the entire pleading was void ab initio. She made her order without prejudice and gave my opponents, attorneys represented by attorneys, another bite at the apple.
Can a court make an order on attorney fees after an appeal is filed?
I think not.
“An appropriate appeal divests a trial court of jurisdiction ‘with regard to all matters embraced within or affected by the judgment which is the subject of the appeal.’ Lowder v. Mills, Inc., 301 N.C. 561 (1981)”, says University of North Carolina Law School Professor Cheryl Howell. This is not in the right jurisdiction, but I am guessing the same rule applies across all jurisdictions.
“After a party gives notice of appeal, the trial judge is functus officio and any judgment entered thereafter is void. In addition to Ponder, see Romulus v. Romulus, 216 N.C. App. 28 (2011)(no jurisdiction to determine amount owing on a distributive award in an ED case); France v. France, 209 NC App 406 (2011)(no jurisdiction after appeal of denial of request to close court)”. Read the exceptions here.
Judge Linda may be bummed out when she has an order overturned on appeal that was fought by a pro se, non-attorney litigant. And she will probably feel a little flushed when she is in confirmation hearings for her next promotion and some Republican Senator pulls out a copy of this Doc of the Day.
Did Judge Janis L. Sammartino Exhibit a Personal Bias Against Me? “Absolutely!” Said Attorney Who Read the File
This is two sections of an informal appellate brief I filed in the Ninth Circuit, Cir. Case No. 22-56003. The COA does not require citation to caselaw by a pro se litigant.:
Whether the Southern District of California exhibited a personal bias against me. [Attorney LaToya] Redd wrote by email to me that the rulings on my case “absolutely” gave the court the appearance of bias.
I filed a motion for recusal of Judge Sammartino, Doc. 153. The case was transferred before a decision on the merits and ordered “denied as moot”, Doc. 173, 174. The court erred when it failed to decide the issue on the merits then adopted the decisions of the apparently biased Judge as “law of the case”.
All decisions subsequent are tainted.
Some but not all the court’s legal errors are addressed in other sections. The appellate court can look through the entire record to assess if there is an appearance of bias. The totality of the record shows the court absolutely appeared to be biased.
Ruling with an appearance of bias violates the most fundamental Constitutional right to present grievances, have them adjudicated fairly with equal protection and due process. It makes every “opinion” that allows for discretion questionable. This includes the big picture of whether to dismiss the complaint. It includes all the building blocks that came to that conclusion, such as whether the defendants were reasonable to deny an accounting and dissolution.
**************************************************************
I followed up with eleven more sections that described specific rulings. Most defy all logic. The few that could have gone either way were always found in favor of my represented adversaries.
Stay tuned for a posting of each section of issues and law, or read it all now by downloading a copy below.
More Errors In Orders Issued by Arkansas Judge Susan Weaver
I am writing an appellant’s brief in the Searcy County Arkansas case Pietrczak v. Me, 65-CV-21-20. I will post some of the highlights, as I work. This is installment two, from the section “Points of Appeal and Principal Authorities”. (The format does not translate, so the numbering is different than in the appellant’s brief.)
- The Court dismissed the Appellant as an individual with prejudice on March 28, 2022 and failed to dismiss the unrepresented Common Defense Doctrine Defendant. In the Court’s judgement against the defaulting defendant, the Court specifically made adverse rulings against the appearing Appellant and seized her property rights without allowing her to defend herself. The Court created law of the case adverse to the appearing Appellant that harms her ability to prevail on her dismissed counterclaim when the order to dismiss it is reversed on appeal. The law of the case created is adverse to the appearing Appellant when she files a case for malicious prosecution. During the hearing of March 17, 2022 from which the adverse order arose, the appearing Appellant was restrained from making objections, cross examining the witness, presenting evidence and testifying. Arkansas has long recognized the common-defense doctrine, which provides that an answer that is timely filed by a co-defendant inures to the benefit of a defaulting co-defendant. *Sutter v. Payne, 337 Ark. 330, 989 S.W.2d 887 (1999)
- The Court tricked Appellant into making unilateral disclosures of the evidence she intended to use at trial, by having the Trial Court Administrator give Appellant specific instructions by telephone (and Zoom call) on how and when to file the exhibits before the August 4, 2021 hearing, knowing the Court intended to continue the trial. Appellee Plaintiff submitted no exhibits. This was a denial of due process.
- Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 26 to 37
- Defendant “Laura Lynn” was misnamed on the complaint. Appellee failed to correct the misnomer by motion for leave to amend despite the appearing Appellant’s incessant admonishments of her correct, legal name. Therefore, there should be no judgement, rulings or findings adverse to Laura Lynn Hammett.
- Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b)
- Defendant “Rural Revival Living Trust” was misnamed on the complaint. Appellee failed to correct the misnomer despite the appearing Appellant’s incessant admonishments that a trust is not a proper party. Therefore, there can be no findings against Laura Lynn Hammett as Trustee of the Rural Revival Living Trust, the Common Defense Doctrine defendant of “Laura Lynn”.
- Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b)
- Plaintiff “Micheal Pietrczak” was misnamed. The allegation in the Complaint is that the plaintiff is a person with power of attorney, Walter Pietrczak. Therefore, an award to Micheal Pietrczak is not appropriate.
- Matter of Hamilton Living Tr. Dated Sept. 22, 2003, 2019 Ark. App. 76, 571 S.W. 3d 53 (2019)
- Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b)
- Walter Pietrczak lacked standing to bring the suit on Micheal Pietrczak’s behalf, because Micheal Pietrczak swore that he revoked the power of attorney before the suit was filed and specifically denied alleging all the facts alleged in the Complaint.
- McKibben v. Mullis, 79 Ark. App. 382, 90 S.W.3d 442 (2002)
- A.C.A. § 16-62-102
All kibbitzing is appreciated. Chime in on the comments if you know any caselaw that upholds or disagrees with my statements I made on my own behalf. (I am not an attorney, and my blog is not legal advice. This is a pro se document written on my own behalf.)
A Higher Law 