There is an old saying that while doctors may struggle with death, and the clergy with sin, only attorneys have to put up with opposing counsel. But Dawn Saenz and Patrick Martinez, in a case from back in 2024, squared off in court against one another — but in a somewhat more . . . personal way. Namely, Saenz sued Martinez to get a court order against him in a civil harassment case.
Saenz sought the court order because she alleged that Martinez was — and the trial court agreed — “annoying” and did things “on purpose.” The whole matter began with a phone call. According to court documents, Martinez got on a call with Saenz’s staff and started yelling. Not just a little bit of yelling, mind you, but so much yelling that the call had to be terminated. He repeated this behavior on two more occasions. And then, at the Riverside Superior Court, things escalated.
When they ended up in a courtroom on different cases, Saenz said he “glared at” her (but otherwise left her alone). They also ended up in a different courtroom on another day and he once again “glared” at her. (In fact, the court mentions “glaring” so often that one at first might think it was describing Stephen Miller’s forehead.)
The court also mentions that Saenz claimed that when Martinez encountered her in the courthouse hallway, minding her own business, he started “yelling nonsense.” And when she tried to retreat to an elevator, he followed her and “cornered” her against the closed doors, “still yelling.”
One can only imagine what the onlookers must have thought. Wasn’t this kind of behavior what one goes to court to avoid?
Saenz certainly thought so, and sought legal protection in the form of that restraining order. The trial court (as they often do) granted a temporary restraining order, or “TRO.” But Martinez, apparently having just been served with the TRO (which one might have thought would put a damper on his yelling) instead called Saenz. His excuse was that he “didn’t know” he’d been served. The trial court later found his testimony on this point “not credible at all.”
Following the TRO, the court set a full hearing to decide whether to make the court order permanent (which, in California, means up to three years). After a multi-day hearing, a number of witnesses, and what must have been an absolute circus of legal arguments, the trial court indeed found that Martinez had violated the TRO, but also that his behavior “did not ‘arise to the level of being harassing.’” Nevertheless, the court warned Martinez that he was indeed “annoying” and “did things on purpose,” but nevertheless found that he had “skirted that line just enough” and was “milliseconds away from getting a restraining order.”
The judge continued with its stern, parental scolding, noting that Martinez’ “lack of credibility” was “atrocious” and a disappointment for an “officer of the court.” The court also found Saenz to be credible. But despite all these findings in her favor, the court decided that Martinez’s behavior didn’t quite warrant a permanent restraining order, denying Saenz’s request and dissolving the TRO.
Saenz — who, of course, was still a lawyer — appealed. Her argument was simple: the trial court found that Martinez was “annoying,” and the relevant statute includes “annoying” someone as a form of harassment that requires a court to impose a restraining order.
It must have seemed to her like an open-and-shut case. Annoying=Harassment=Restraining Order. Simple algebra, right?
Well, not quite, the appellate court said. It isn’t really that simple. The court pointed out that while the trial judge used the word “annoying,” he also found that Martinez’ behavior “just didn’t arise to the level” of harassment, which is the actual legal standard. The appellate court concluded that the trial court hadn’t made a formal finding of statutory harassment, but rather was using a more colloquial, everyday sense of the word “annoying.”
Some years ago, the California State Bar attempted to impose a standard on attorney conduct, potentially punishable by action against an attorney’s license, that they “avoid all offensive personality.” The State Bar eventually had to rescind that rule, though, because it was such a subjective standard that it was, realistically, impossible to enforce. And some folks even like it when their legal representative annoys the other side; for some clients, it means that the attorney is “fighting for them.”
And now, it appears, we have an appeals court confirming what everyone has known all along.
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah Attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies a glaring problem was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: A glaring problem )
Also on site :