Monday, July 13, 2026
Page 1
$20,000 Sanction Justified for Delay in Invoking Right Under Case Law—C.A.
Justices Approve Penalizing Plaintiff in Divorce Case for Leading Opposing Counsel, Court, to Think She Agreed to Issue Being Tried Separately, Then Switched Position
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has affirmed an order socking the plaintiff in a divorce case with a $20,000 sanction because she had stipulated to the issue of the validity of a premarital agreement being tried separately then, eight months later, after several hearings had been held, declined to waive her right, under a 1996 decision, to all matters being decided by the same judge.
Justice Stephen Goorvitch authored the opinion, filed Thursday, affirming an order by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Young.
Petitioner/appellant Claudia Z. Martinez contested the authenticity of a premarital agreement, in Spanish, produced by her husband, Juan E. Camou. At a hearing on March 15, 2023, Martinez’s lawyer, Casey A. Olsen of the Torrance firm of Olsen & Olsen indicated an amenability to a bifucation of the issue as to the genuiness of the document.
However, at Nov. 7, 2023 trial setting conference, Olsen provided a two-day time estimate for the hearing on the bifurcated issue and asked that the matter be sent to a long-cause trial court. Young said she wasn’t inclined to do that.
1996 Case
It was then that Olsen announced that he was asserting Young’s right under the European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court.
In that 1996 case, Justice Norman Epstein (later a presiding justice, now deceased) declared that “in a court trial, absent a waiver or a stipulation to the contrary, a party is entitled to have the same judge try all portions of a bifurcated trial that depend on weighing evidence and issues of credibility, and that if that judge is unavailable to do so, a mistrial must be declared.”
Young recited in her minute order:
“After the Court makes clear this case does not qualify for referral to a long cause courtroom, Petitioner’s counsel states that all issues need to be tried together so that the case will qualify for a long cause referral and expressly declines to give a European Beverage waiver on behalf of his client, so that there will not be a bifurcated trial on the validity of the premarital agreement.”
Camou’s lawyer, Matthew Kurt Skarin of El Segundo, announced he would be seeking sanctions; did so; and Young granted his motion. She ordered that the $20,000 be paid by Martinez at a rate of $750 per month, with the money deducted from her spousal support payments.
(It was held by Div. Seven of the Court of Appeal for this district in 2022 in Featherstone v. Martinez that “the provisions of section 271 do not provide for sanctions to be imposed on counsel for a party.” Other cases are to the same effect,)
Goorvitch’s Opinion
In Thursday’s opinion, Goorvitch wrote:
“We hold that parties have an affirmative obligation to invoke European Beverage in a timely manner as necessary to avoid undue delay and increased litigation costs in marital dissolution cases. Because Martinez failed to do so, we affirm the trial court’s order imposing $20,000 in sanctions under Family Code section 271.”
That statute says, in part:
“[T]he court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which any conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction.”
Goorvitch commented:
“…Martinez led the trial court and opposing counsel to believe that she would not invoke her right to have one judge try the entire case. This constitutes undue delay, warranting sanctions under section 271.”
‘Earliest Opportunity’
Martinez argued in her brief on appeal, prepared by Olsen, that she invoked European Beverage at the “earliest opportunity,” doing so as soon as the need to do so arose by virtue of Young declining to send the case to a long-cause court.
Goorvitch said that Young could have “reasonably concluded that Martinez’s counsel engaged in gamesmanship,” remarking:
“Given the heavy caseloads and frequency of judicial reassignments in|the Los Angeles County Superior Court, it is not credible that an attorney practicing family law in the jurisdiction for nearly 40 years would be surprised that a European Beverage waiver is required when bifurcating issues, even when a case is transferred to a long cause courtroom.”
Olsen was admitted to practice on Dec. 11, 1986. His firm was founded in 1962 by his father, now deceased.
Duty Argued
The lawyer had estimated at the trial setting conference that trial on the issue of whether the premarital agreement was legitimate would last two days. Martinez argued that Young was obliged to transfer any matter that would take more than five hours to the master calendar court for assignment as a long-cause matter.
The justice responded:
“Martinez is missing the forest for the trees. The sanctions award is justified because Martinez failed to raise the European Beverage issue in a timely manner, after stipulating to bifurcation, for purposes of gamesmanship. The propriety of the long cause threshold as a general matter and the court’s decision not to transfer the case to a long cause court are irrelevant.
“In any event, Martinez is incorrect. She identifies no statute, case, California Rule of Court, or local rule mandating that any family law matter exceeding one day be transferred to a long cause court. To the contrary, presiding judges and their designees have authority to determine which cases should be tried in which departments, given caseloads and judicial availability….As the trial court noted, the supervising judge had set the threshold at 15 hours, which fell within her discretion.”
He added in a footnote that judges are not required to accept as accurate a lawyer’s estimate as to how time a proceeding will consume.
The case is In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, 2026 S.O.S. 2024.
There was no appearance on appeal by Camou.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company