Previous Story
Mitchell’s former client could face court sanction
|
Posted on Sep 28 2000
Supreme Court Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro yesterday warned golfer Juan M. San Nicolas that he may ultimately be sanctioned if he fails to turnover for safekeeping with the court the $800,056.38 he had collected from the bank account of Saipan Lau Lau Development and Shimizu Corp.
While the court recognizes that Mr. San Nicolas had already obtained a jury verdict in his favor in the Superior Court awarding him $1.5 million in civil damages, Justice Castro said the issue is not whether he is entitled to such an award but whether he should collect the money right now.
Justice Castro said Mr. San Nicolas has been ill-advised by his suspended lawyer Theodore Mitchell to disobey certain court orders and may ultimately subject him to sanctions, unnecessary time and expense. The court urged Mr. San Nicolas to seriously examine whether his new counsel Jeanne M. Rayphand can adequately protect his interest.
Ms. Rayphand failed to attend the court hearing on Sept. 22, 2000 in connection with the civil case filed against the owner of the golf course because she was down with flu.
But the court is apparently not convinced. Justice Castro has ordered Ms. Rayphand to submit evidence, including but not limited to a declaration under the penalty of perjury a declaration from her doctor attesting to her illness in 10 days.
Mr. San Nicolas had attempted to file a motion for continuance of the hearing on Sept. 22, 2000 claiming that his lawyer, Ms. Rayphand was ill and could not attend the hearing that day. It was supported by a declaration by Mr. Mitchell, his former lawyer.
The court had earlier warned Mr. Mitchell to stop the use of dilatory tactics in his effort to delay the resolution of the civil case. Justice Castro has warned that failure to comply with the directive shall result in appropriate sanctions against Mr. Mitchell.
At the same time, the court has granted the request of Saipan Lau Lau Development Inc. to answer the petition for stay of the enforcement action of the Superior Court judgment on the civil case. The court said it will no longer hold any hearings on the petition and will only consider written arguments.
