Orange Tree Condominium Owners Assn. v. Do CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 24, 2024G062672California1,583 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

As lawyers, we may easily take for granted basic aspects of civil procedure, the methods we employ so often they become second nature. As judges, however, we recognize non-lawyers face a more daunting task as they litigate their matters before our courts. For them, the procedures so common to us can seem arcane, counterintuitive, or unwieldy. And so a little bit of patience and understanding is required with self-represented litigants. They lack a lawyer’s familiarity with the system and “are more prone to misunderstanding the court’s requirements.” (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) Yet “mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) This case demonstrates how some self-represented litigants take advantage of the leniency bestowed upon them. Some of them, like the appellant herein, appear to weaponize it, draining resources, energy, and time not only from their opponents, but from the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.