Wednesday, August 12, 2026
Page 3
Lawyer Fails to Provide Record in Contesting $1.3 Million Judgment Against Him—C.A.
Opinion Says Appellant Fails to Meet Burden, Mandating Affirmance
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has affirmed a $1,258,246.47 malpractice award against a pro per appellant, explaining that the record on appeal is so scant that it can’t even be ascertained what the plaintiff was suing over—a situation not unusual where appeals are brought by self-represented parties, except that this appellant is an attorney on active status.
Justice Terry B. O’Rourke authored the unpublished opinion, filed Monday. It upholds a summary judgment granted by San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert C. Longstreth in favor of Carlos Guassac, dba Long Lodge Tribal Enterprises, against attorney Edgar H. Sevilla III and his law office.
O’Rourke wrote that Sevilla—who was admitted to practice in 1992 and has a law degree from Arizona State University—contends on appeal that the damage-award is excessive and that a tribe of Native Americans Guassac purports to represent disavows any connection with him, pointing to a lack of standing.
No Error Shown
“Because the record on appeal is insufficient to evaluate these claims and Sevilla has either forfeited his contentions or not met his appellate burden to show error or prejudice, we affirm the judgment,” the jurist said, adding:
“We are unable to provide a summary of the underlying facts. None are apparent from the appellate record, which does not contain a summary judgment ruling or statement of decision.”
He said that Sevilla “purports to state underlying facts but provides no record citations, or cites only to the judgment, which does not recite detailed facts or even identify the nature of Guassac’s causes of action.”
Respondent’s Brief
Guassac, also a pro se litigant, operated Long Lodge Tribal Enterprises, which he described in his respondent’s brief as “a Native American-owned business engaged in the sale of medical marijuana and cannabis related products.” The plaintiff/respondent said the Sevilla provided “legal representation in connection with various business, regulatory, and tax matters relating to its cannabis enterprise,” contending:
“During the representation, Appellant and his firm repeatedly failed to perform the work for which they were retained. Appellant missed court appearances, administrative deadlines, filing due dates, and charged Respondent for motions that were never prepared. Respondent’s multiple requests for accounting and return of client files from Appellant went unanswered.”
He continued:
“The evidence showed that Appellant knowingly worked with a disbarred attorney, Oscar Arturo Ruiz De Chavez…, who handled Respondent’s matters under Appellant’s supervision. When Oscar was arrested during the representation, Appellant admitted he could not access Respondent’s files, retrieve court information, or continue representing Respondent.”
De Chavez was disbarred in 2016 based on his “continued and repeated failures to comply with State Bar Court and Supreme Court disciplinary orders.”
The case is Guassac v. Sevilla, D086205.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company