Page 1
C.A. Issues Opinions in Latest Disputes in 26-Year Series
Two Decisions Filed in Controversies With Genesis in Legal Representation in 1996
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Beverly Hills attorney who once had a judgment for more than $1 million against a former client for fees and interest, but had it snatched by Div. One of the Court of Appeal for this district, and then became a judgment debtor, won one and lost one yesterday in that same division.
Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild authored both opinions. She also wrote two previous opinions relating to attorney David S. Karton’s long-ago representation of plastic surgeon William Russell Dougherty, the first decision, filed on Feb. 17, 2009, vacating the lawyer’s 1999 default judgment against the ex-client.
The 2009 opinion was partially certified for publication; one filed Nov. 14, 2014, was ordered published; yesterday’s opinions were marked “not to be published in the official reports.”
Pennsylvania Judgment
Yesterday’s opinion in Karton v. Dougherty, B322250, affirms a judgment awarded by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dennis J. Landin in favor of Karton’s law corporation based on a domesticated Pennsylvania judgment.
After Karton obtained a default judgment against Dougherty—his client in a 1996 marital dissolution action—he domesticated that 1999 judgment in Pennsylvania. The Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas there subsequently found Dougherty in contempt for failing to cooperate in discovery and imposed a sanction, payable to the court in the amount of $5,000.
Karton sought attorney fees in connection with obtaining that order. On Oct, 4, 2006, the Pennsylvania court held that Dougherty “shall pay counsel fees relating to all the outstanding Motions for Contempt in the amount of $30,000 to David S. Karton...and his attorney.”
On Dec. 12, 2019, the Court of Common Pleas entered a judgment in favor of Karton’s law corporation for $53,759.34 based on the $30,000 awarded in 2006 plus interest.
California Judgment
The Los Angeles Superior Court on Jan. 21, 2020, entered a judgment in favor of the law corporation, against Dougherty, in the amount of $53,759.34 based on the sister state judgment. Dougherty then moved for an order vacating the judgment, arguing that it was secured “as a result of improper collection activities in Pennsylvania on a void California judgment.”
The default judgment was determined by Rothschild in her 2009 opinion to be void on its face because it awarded more money than the plaintiff claimed on the face of the complaint, and that the subsequent fee awards for enforcing the judgment were void for lack of service on the debtor.
Landin denied the motion to vacate the judgment, reasoning:
“…Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas has ruled in 2019 that this sanction in the contempt order is collateral to the underlying judgment and therefore remains in full force and effect, despite the reversal of the underlying judgment. The court reasoned that Defendant was found in contempt for his failure to comply with a discovery order entered in pursuit of Plaintiffs execution on its judgment, and therefore, this is a separate, distinct sanction to which counsel in 2006 agreed as reflected in Judge Lavelle’s order.
“The Court agrees with this assessment….
“Here, the contempt sanction is collateral to the underlying default judgment because it is based on Defendant’s failure to comply with a discovery order, for which sanctions proceedings could have occurred regardless of the outcome of the appeal of the judgment.”
Reduction of Amount
However, Landin reduced the judgment by $14,383.30. Following a remand by Div. One in 2009, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ralph Dau (since deceased) found that Dougherty had over-paid attorney fees by that much.
Landin said:
“The Court agrees that the judgment amount must be modified to reflect the credit Defendant is entitled to by the California judgment entered on August 3, 2012. While Plaintiff has a valid judgment based on the sister-state judgment, Plaintiff cannot take judgment against Defendant with™ it affording the offset that the trial court has already ruled on the merits.”
Rothschild’s Opinion
In her opinion affirming Landin’s decisions, Rothschild said:
“Here, there is no dispute that the Pennsylvania court that issued the judgment had both jurisdiction of the subject matter and jurisdiction over Dougherty personally, that Dougherty (through his counsel) stipulated to the 2006 order, and that Dougherty was provided with notice and an opportunity to respond to the motion for entry of the judgment in 2019. Nor do the parties dispute that the 2019 judgment is a final judgment. Under the full faith and credit clause, therefore, the superior court was required to domesticate the 2019 judgment.”
She added that it was within Landin’s discretion to apply a judgment credit and there was no abuse of discretion.
Also filed yesterday was an opinion in Karton v. Musick, Peeler, Garrett, B322250. The law firm of Musick Peeler is the assignee of two judgments against Karon’s law corporation and in favor of Dougherty totaling $688,538.10.
Although Dau had awarded Karton’s firm $1,204,298.30 in attorney’s fees, costs, and interest, finding him to be the prevailing party, the Court of Appeal reversed in 2014, determining Dougherty to have won.
Through proceedings that followed, Dougherty became the judgment creditor.
Karton and his firm filed third party claims as to two funds in bank accounts which Musick Peeler levied upon. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Edward B. Moreton Jr. rejected the claims and Karton and the law corporation appealed.
Rothschild’s opinion affirms Morton’s Jan. 24, 2020 order. She found that insufficient evidence was adduced to support the contentions that part of the funds were those of a retirement plan and that the firm was a trustee of the monies and some of the funds belonged to clients.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company