Styles

Styles v. Mumbert

Good Law
164 Cal. App. 4th 1163·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1056·79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 15, 2008H029767California2,062 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

Respondent Delia Styles (Styles) obtained a default judgment of $730,000 against appellant Edward Mumbert, a licensed California bail agent (Mumbert). Mumbert appeals from this judgment. Mumbert has also sued the attorney who represented him in the action, Anthony Pagkas (Pagkas), for malpractice. While the appeal from the default judgment was pending, Styles assigned to Pagkas, for some undisclosed consideration, her interest in the default judgment. Pagkas now moves to substitute himself in place of Styles as respondent in the appeal from the default judgment. Mumbert opposes this motion. Finding that the proposed substitution violates multiple Rules of Professional Conduct as well as the Business and Professions Code, we will deny the motion.

Factual and Procedural Background

Styles sued Humbert in the underlying action, and Humbert retained Pagkas to represent him. During the time Pagkas represented Humbert, the trial court ordered terminating sanctions against Humbert for, among other things, failing to respond to discovery. After Pagkas admitted on the record that he did not have time to devote to the case, the trial court allowed Humbert to retain new counsel.…

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.