Certainly L’Affaire Sanai is the only issue that has ever motivated frankfromfresno to comment publicly on the internet: I notice if I do a web search for frankfromfresno -kozinski -sanai, no pages show up. However, when I do a web search for frankfromfresno, 207 pages show up.

That is manifestly disgusting and a continued abuse of the legal system. What other federal judges will become targets if they dare to rule against Sanai? It’s time for him to lose his law license for harboring sour grapes and for taking out a grudge by trying to take down the bench.

That’s not true at all. A litigant would be perfectly legitimate in citing the case for the fact that a court had an extremely disfavorable view of Cyrus’s conduct and sanctioned him. This could easily be relevant in a case where, say, Cyrus’s mental state of mind (for an evidentiary ruling) or reputation is at issue (say, slander or libel).

That’s why, in citations, you’ll oftentimes see “rev. on other grounds” in italics in the citation. Just because one point of law got reversed doesn’t mean the whole opinion is gibberish.

I’m moderately convinced that “frankfromfresno” is just a sock puppet for Sanai, given how obsessively Sanai is monitoring this discussion.

Let me make this more clear: A district court went out of its way to point out how unethical Sanai’s behavior was. The underlying ruling was reversed on a technicality, but the appellate court DID NOT DISAGREE that Sanai’s conduct was unethical. The fact that he won on a technicality doesn’t make his conduct before the district court any more ethical, it just means that he got a lucky break on appeal.

Nobody is citing the district court’s decision as precedent. Everybody is citing the district court’s colloquy to show that Cyrus Sanai is an unethical lawyer. The fact that the underlying ruling was reversed on a technicality doesn’t change the fact that a district court felt compelled to describe Cyrus Sanai’s conduct as a litigant as manifestly unethical. It wasn’t a holding of the court (vulnerable to being reversed) but an aside about the parties.

Shame on Cyrus for trying to portray the appellate court as somehow having vindicated his conduct, when nothing of the sort happened. Multiple judges in multiple jurisdictions have condemned Cyrus Sanai as an unethical litigant, and this is just the next stage of that saga.

Well it would be improper for a litigant to cite to that passage as authority for anything since the trial court’s decision was explicitly reversed. And after it is so reversed, an Appellate court need not wade into the facts. The lower court decision is irrelevant.

But, of course, you were not trying to adhere to the ethics required of attorneys filing papers, you were just making a blog post and the latter is less constrained by ethical considerations, obviously.

The cite is given in the post, which acknowledges the fee award was reversed on other grounds, so I fail to see what you think you’ve uncovered.

“Finding Mr. Sanai had not brought this action in good faith,FN36 the trial court awarded UDR $136,034 in fees, 25 percent of the total fees sought by all defendants in their consolidated attorney fee motion, pursuant to Civil Code section 1785.31, subdivision (e). We reverse the award on two grounds.”

FN36. The trial court commented: “Plaintiff has proliferated needless, baseless pleadings that now occupy about 15 volumes of Superior Court files, not to mention the numerous briefs submitted in the course of the forays into the Court of Appeal and attempts to get before the Supreme Court, and not one pleading appears to have had substantial merit. The genesis of this lawsuit, and the unwarranted grief and expense it has spawned, are an outrage.””

The first paragraph is the appellate court speaking and the second paragraph is a footnote in which they quote the trial court. The case is viewable to those with access to westlaw at: Sanai v. U.D. Registry, Inc.
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL 361327
Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2005.

I have no idea what Mr. Sanai’s conduct was in the trial court, but to suggest that the appellate decision sanctioned him is exactly wrong.