Page 1
C.A. Refers Glendale Lawyer to State Bar for Attacks on Court
Opinion Says Attorney Acted in ‘Reprehensible’ Manner by Accusing Judge of Misrepresenting Evidence, Demanding That Jurist ‘Stop Making Any Rulings’
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
|
|
|
NARINE MKRTCHYAN attorney |
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ordered that a Glendale area attorney be reported to the State Bar for potential disciplinary action over “numerous uncivil and disrespectful attacks on the court” during proceedings in which she acted on behalf of a plaintiff’s lawyer, who was purportedly too sick to appear for trial.
The attorney, Narine Mkrtchyan of the Glendale-based Mkrtchyan Law, made the offending statements during two appearances before Riverside Superior Judge Manuel Bustamante Jr. in May 2023.
Acting Presiding Justice Eileen C. Moore authored Tuesday’s opinion which directs the clerk to make the referral. She wrote:
“[Mkrtchyan] made numerous uncivil and disrespectful attacks on the court, including accusing the court of misrepresenting and ignoring evidence, and demonstrating bias. She ordered the court, at one point, to ‘stop making any rulings right now,’ and also interrupted the court and demanded the court ‘let me finish.’ Such conduct is reprehensible and untenable, and accordingly, we are referring Mkrtchyan to the State Bar of California for potential disciplinary action.”
Justices Thomas A. Delaney and Martha K. Gooding joined in the opinion.
Special Appearances
Mkrtchyan’s statements were made during special appearances for plaintiff Jerry Cradduck, whose personal injury trial against Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. and the owner of a franchised Embassy Suites property in Palm Desert had begun a week earlier. Cradduck’s attorney, Todd Samuels, was present for jury selection and the first day of trial.
However, Samuels became visibly upset after Bustamante asked that Cradduck offer his testimony in light of the purported unavailability of other witnesses on the first afternoon of testimony.
Before the trial resumed the following Monday, Cradduck filed a motion for mistrial based on statements made by defense counsel during an opening statement, but neither Samuels nor Cradduck appeared for trial. Bustamante advised defense counsel that the court had “received word this morning that Mr. Samuels had a medical emergency so that he could not be here” and ordered that the matter be continued for eight days, to May 30, 2023.
A remote hearing was scheduled for May 24 to allow Samuels to provide more information. On May 23, Samuels filed a declaration indicating that he had been taken by ambulance to an emergency room on the Sunday before trial was scheduled to resume and remained “extremely unwell.”
On May 24, Mkrtchyan appeared for Cradduck and said that Samuels was “still very sick” and “needs medical leave for a month or so to treat his medical condition.” Bustamante denied the motion for mistrial, expressed concern that Samuels “wants to hit the reset button on this case,” and retained the May 30 date for the resumption of the trial.
Lack of Compassion
Mkrtchyan responded by accusing the court of a “lack of compassion” and said everyone present “should be ashamed.” She further indicated that she was planning on filing a “declaration with further proof of his disability under [the Americans with Disabilities Act]” and made reference to COVID-19 protocols; no such filing was ever made.
After the May 24 hearing, Samuels submitted more medical records, showing that he had presented to the emergency room on May 21 with “chest pain” and had been diagnosed with “insomnia” and “anxiety.” Samuels also presented a doctor’s note specifying that he “had been acutely hospitalized” and that “it is impossible for him to continue with his pending trial” until June 12.
On May 30, Mkrtchyan appeared remotely, but Cradduck and Samuels failed to present themselves in court. Defense counsel made a motion to dismiss the case under Code of Civil Procedure §581(l), which provides that “[t]he court may dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant when either party fails to appear at the trial.”
Bustamante tentatively ruled in favor of dismissal, noting that the doctor’s note was lacking in detail as to when Samuels was discharged. Mkrtchyan responded by saying that Samuels “was still in the hospital,” and was “disabled” and unable to speak.
She then interrupted the judge, demanding that he “let [her] finish,” and remarked:
“I’ll go after this and I will make it a federal case. Okay? This is abuse of discretion. This is arbitrary, and this is frankly reportable. I cannot believe I have to even make this argument.”
She orally moved to disqualify Bustamante under Code of Civil Procedure §170.1 “because of clear prejudice to the plaintiff” and said “[y]ou are furthermore not allowed to make any more rulings in this case” until the “motion is heard by the supervising judge of Riverside County.”
The disqualification motion was struck for failure to set forth legal grounds to justify the request.
Additional Records
Samuels later submitted additional medical records indicating that he was hospitalized on May 26 in a “severe life-threatening condition” and, as of June 1, was unable to participate in “any kind of trials.”
Defendants also filed documents indicating that Samuels had exchanged emails with other attorneys in early June, saying that he was “still engaged in trial,” and had remotely appeared for a June 2 hearing in San Diego Superior Court, wearing a suit and failing to mention anything about his health.
Bustamante granted the defense motion to dismiss under §581(l) and referred Samuels to the State Bar for making “deliberate misrepresentations” when telling other attorneys on unrelated matters that he was engaged in trial in the present case, as well as his conduct before the court.
Moore affirmed the ensuing defense judgment, remarking:
“The record demonstrates that both Cradduck and Samuels failed to appear as ordered on May 30, 2023. The court had ordered that the parties and counsel ‘be present in person.’ The court, at that point, had already granted an eight-day continuance. Samuels had offered the court little to rely on in the way of actual evidence.”
She declared:
“The clerk of the court is directed to send a discipline referral form to the State Bar of California with regard to the conduct of Narine Mkrtchyan, state bar number 243269, regarding her verbal attacks on the trial court….Because the trial court already reported Samuels to the State Bar, we find no need for a second referral.”
In a footnote, the jurist commended Bustamonte for conducting himself “with admirable restraint.”
She also noted that “[n]umerous documents were filed under seal in this appeal because they mention Samuels’ medical records and condition” but said that “Samuels has waived his privacy by placing his medical condition squarely at issue.”
As of this writing, the State Bar website shows no record of any disciplinary action against Samuels.
Mkrtchyan’s Response
Mkrtchyan responded to Tuesday’s opinion, saying:
“This decision was an abuse of discretion in disregard of the well-established standards that cases should be decided on the merits not on personal prejudices and biases of judicial officers. It also indicates failure of our court system to be sensitive to mental health issues that are affecting millions of Americans, including lawyers. It contains numerous misrepresentations of the record.”
She continued:
“I was not the attorney of record in this case but was only specially appearing for my brother-in-law, Todd who was having a severe mental health crisis requiring hospitalization during trial. As a family member I had personal knowledge at the time I appeared before the court that he was in the hospital. On his behalf I asked for a brief continuance of the trial, when the trial court refused to consider his medical proof that was filed in court and was extremely antagonistic to me as an attorney standing in. The trial court had no basis to disbelieve me as an officer of court making representations that my brother-in-law was hospitalized and unable to proceed with the trial. Furthermore, the State Bar has already considered the trial court’s request that my brother-in-law be sanctioned and found no misconduct. The discipline case was dismissed with no action taken.”
The case is Cradduck v. Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc., 2025 S.O.S. 1793.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company