[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
argument is 15.1619 of EVA Sports Incorporated versus Fingerhub Direct Marketing.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Just one switch of seats.

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
Is it Mr. Lobin?

[00:00:41] Speaker 02:
Mr. Lobin, yes.

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
Good morning to the court, and may it please the court.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
This appeal involves the same case we've just been discussing for the last half hour and, of course, the facts and procedural facts that the court may recognize from that discussion.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
But I brought this appeal because the district court's procedure

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
in assessing sanctions through the orders that it entered, the final judgment that it entered in a series of orders over the space of just weeks.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
And the subsequent motion for contempt had a real impact on my family.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
And the point of this appeal is that

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
The district court can do better.

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
It should do better.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
It might be best to listen to the question of the chief judge.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
I just wanted to get that first.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
No, I appreciate that.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
But what is it you're appealing here?

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
I'm appealing the district court's order in late 2014 at the hearing, which motion was then held open until a final order came out in January of 2015, which we subsequently appealed 30 days later.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
The court said,

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
I order you to pay the sanctions.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
Why is that the first time that the district court said that?

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
Because the district court never said that before, going back to 2000.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
Wait, so what order are you appealing?

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
You'd be timed by to appeal that order.

[00:02:14] Speaker 02:
So what order are you appealing?

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
At the hearing November of 2014, the district court had a hearing where it assessed

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
a motion that was pending.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
It was a motion for contempt.

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
At that hearing, the district court ordered for the first time, you need to pay sanctions.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
That is the order that I'm appealing.

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
And the reason the notice of appeal wasn't filed until the motion was disposed of was because there was still fees and cost issues that the court specifically held open until a final order came out.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
So that final order came out in

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
February of 2014, and we file our notice of appeal in 30 days later.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
So that is the first time the court ordered me to pay $20,000.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
This was in the contempt proceedings?

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
OK, but usually, you typically, you've got a sanction that's been awarded.

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
Typically, you would appeal the award of the sanction.

[00:03:24] Speaker 03:
not wait till contempt.

[00:03:25] Speaker 03:
Contempt proceedings is a question of whether or not the issue is whether or not you paid or not paid.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
Well, that's exactly my point on this appeal.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
The district court did not do things right.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
We can do better.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
We can state things better.

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
We're a district court judge.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
We can be clear.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
We can be concise.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
We can tell the parties and counsel, what are you ordering?

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
What the district court here did in 2013 was it said, here's the first order.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
Guess what?

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Manly.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
you are sanctioned $8.5 million.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
And oh, by the way, on this little $20,000 piece of that, your counsel is jointly and severally liable.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
No order to pay.

[00:04:05] Speaker 02:
Here's the liability.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
Two weeks later, the court issues another order that says, Manley, you are liable for $8.5 million, including that $20,000,

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
What's missing from the second order is any mention of me, any mention of counsel, any mention of anything.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
The same amount of money is mentioned, but what changed is in the first order, it said, hey, Lavin's jointly and serially liable.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
Second order, no mention of Lavin.

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
Same amount of money is mentioned.

[00:04:34] Speaker 02:
It says manly.

[00:04:35] Speaker 03:
So you thought that you were no longer liable after that you had a sanctions order that was quite explicit.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
And you think that that somehow was removed from the equation?

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
So why did you have to pay?

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
The way I read orders, and I've been doing this a long time, is that when you have a first order that says one thing, second order addresses the exact same subject matter and changes something, that the second order replaces the first order.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
So yes, I read that second order to say the court is saying that my client is liable to be able to- Wait, did the second order say this supersedes?

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
or retract in any way the July 12th order?

[00:05:17] Speaker 02:
No, it didn't say that, but it said, let judgment be entered accordingly.

[00:05:21] Speaker 02:
And then the third order was actually the final judgment, which restated the second order.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
And again, did not mention me, did not mention counsel.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
So you ended up paying this voluntarily, right?

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
I paid it because of the order I'm appealing, which was the court statement at the hearing in November 14 that said,

[00:05:40] Speaker 02:
I don't care about all that 15 months ago.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
You ordered to pay.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
Tell me when you can pay.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
So you were ordered to pay it, and you did pay it.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
I was ordered to pay it, and under the duress of the threat of, and if you don't, there's going to be fees and costs and everything else.

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
So yes, I paid it.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
And then I was going to appeal it right away, but guess what?

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
Hanging over my head was holding open the motion.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
We could still get fees.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
Even though I paid, we could still get fees assessed.

[00:06:11] Speaker 02:
We could still get costs assessed.

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
I don't want to pay those.

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
So I'm not going to file most of the appeal prematurely, notwithstanding this court's admonition.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
The last decision was the denial of additional sanctions.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
And you basically won that, right?

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
So doesn't that mean you lack jurisdiction to be here?

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
I read their argument.

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
Look.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
There was a motion pending.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
The district court addressed several issues while considering that motion.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
On the first issue, it said at the hearing, you're ordered to pay.

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
Then I pay.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
Then later, the court addressed the other issues within that same motion.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
It then came out with a written order that says, on those other issues, no fees, no costs.

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
The matter is now disposed of.

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
In my practice in the district court, and with this court's admonitions of not filing premature notices of appeal, I waited until that court finally disposed of the motion, all the matters within that motion.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
So the decision within the disposition of that motion that I'm appealing is the first decision made in the hearing that said, you're ordered to pay, which was the first time I was ordered to pay anything.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
So that's the jurisdictional argument.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
I'm just a little confused about how things went down.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
If you were ordered to pay and you were paid, you could have and should have presumably maybe appealed that.

[00:07:40] Speaker 03:
But you're saying you couldn't appeal it till later.

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
So why didn't you wait to pay?

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
Why did you pay?

[00:07:46] Speaker 02:
Because if I did not pay, then the threat was there's going to be fees assessed added on to the $20,000

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
There's going to be cost assessed added onto the $20,000.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
And then the final order would have come out at who knows what amount that would be.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
And then I would appeal.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
So that didn't seem like a logical option to respond to that duress with any other action other than.

[00:08:09] Speaker 03:
But this was in the context of a contempt proceeding, right?

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
So that kind of presumes that there's already been a judgment that you're required to pay

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
and you get contempt for failure to enforce the judgment?

[00:08:25] Speaker 02:
Well, certainly one can file, and they did.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
You can file a contempt motion any time you believe there's been contempt.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
But the basis for the allegation of contempt was that there was a prior order to pay, which was still pending.

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
And there wasn't.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
What is striking is that you didn't show up for the last hearing.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
The district court in the initial order

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
put my name as a shorthand for my law firm, because I was lead counsel.

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
I'm the one that did all the summary judgment motions we were just talking about, the winning on all the patent issues.

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
That's what I did in the case.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
The court said, well, what I mean by Laban is Laban and his firm together.

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
It's one sanctioned party.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
There's not two separate parties.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
targets of the sanctions.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
It was my firm, me, whatever you want to call it, whatever shorthand you want to use.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
The court chose to use that, my last name.

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
So at the hearing, my partner showed up on behalf of the firm, including me and everybody.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
I was at a summary judgment hearing in Utah that had been previously scheduled.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
I couldn't attend.

[00:09:33] Speaker 02:
I wasn't trying to not show up.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
You know, frankly, this was a long case.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
You can see there's a lot of litigation involved.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
I got to know this judge quite well personally.

[00:09:43] Speaker 02:
We had in-chambers meetings.

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
I liked Judge Erickson.

[00:09:46] Speaker 02:
This appeal is about if you want to impose sanctions, then name me in the final judgment.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
Name me in the final order.

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
You didn't do that.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
So I don't know.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
I don't get to go call her up and say, what did you mean by those two things?

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
All I can do is read the final judgment, see that my name has been removed,

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
and presume under the law that I've set forth in the appeal brief that the final judgment supersedes these other prior orders.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
And make no mistake, this was not a coercive order.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
She wasn't saying the attorney is sanctioned in order to do something or, you know,

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
a certain amount per day until you do something.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
This was the end of the case.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
This was purely punitive.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
There was nothing coercive about it.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
She certainly named you, in the July 2013 order, Hanley and Lawvin are jointly and severally liable for $20,000.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
And then the next order, and then the next order, the final judgment, says the exact same thing, except it doesn't mention anything about, Lawvin doesn't mention anything about jointly and severally.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
So that's why I'm sitting there thinking, what does she mean?

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
I didn't, you know.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
Well, she didn't revoke the previous order.

[00:11:04] Speaker 01:
She just didn't have the same detail.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
Certainly by implication, she's addressing the exact same subject matter.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
So yes, she did revoke.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
In my view, it's obvious.

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
I mean, it is reading the language and, you know,

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
the timing of the orders and what was said here and what was then said subsequently and what was said in the final judgment, I'm sitting there thinking, I don't know what's inside her head, and I'm not allowed to call her and ask questions.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
Accepting reasonableness on your part in that regard, when you get the contempt filed against you, then the norm would be, OK, I've got an argument.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
I wasn't included in the final order.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
I don't think these sanctions were ever entered against me.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
And if you lose that in front of the district court, then you come up here and you appeal it to us.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
That's what I did.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
But you paid the amount.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
You paid what was owed.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:11:59] Speaker 02:
When a federal judge says at a hearing that in considering this motion, which included many sub, the motion included several requests.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
Request one, order law to pay.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
Request two, give us fees.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
Request three, give us costs.

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
in disposing of the motion, she disposed of the first thing at the hearing.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
She said, you've got to pay in 30 days.

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
And because I want to see what happens, I'm holding open the issue of fees, costs, whatever else I want to do.

[00:12:28] Speaker 02:
So to me, that means the motion is still pending.

[00:12:31] Speaker 02:
It hasn't been finally decided yet.

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
And if I want to avoid two and three, I've got to pay.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
It seemed obvious to me.

[00:12:41] Speaker 02:
She's obviously upset.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
Once again, what's the standard here?

[00:12:44] Speaker 01:
Abuse of discretion?

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
Yes, it's abuse of discretion.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
But clearly, what I'm trying to do here is just have this court say to the district court, you're a judge.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
You have the power of the written word.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
And be clear and concise.

[00:13:03] Speaker 02:
And in this case, she was not clear and concise.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
And she ordered me to pay.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
I had no choice but to pay.

[00:13:09] Speaker 02:
And I'm appealing that order.

[00:13:12] Speaker 02:
You're into your rebuttal.

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
Why don't we hear from the other side?

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
Yes, thank you.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
Please, the Court again, Your Honor.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
Tom Bitt for Aviva.

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
I think maybe the most helpful thing I can do in light of the argument that was just made is just to go through some dates with the Court.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
On July 23, 2013, Mr. Lobbin and his firm Eclipse were sanctioned.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
They're two different entities.

[00:13:41] Speaker 00:
They're both mentioned in the order, and the judge uses Lobbin as the shorthand in her order for Lobbin and the law firm Eclipse.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
And there's no doubt about what the court's intent was.

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
It says, Laban shall be jointly and severally liable for this $20,000 with Manley.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
So as of July 23, 2013, they've been sanctioned and they owe $20,000.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
On August 6, 2013,

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
There's an order against Manley incorporating the $20,000 in the other $8 million of liability of findings in Aviva's favor.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
On August 21, 2013, judgment is entered against Manley.

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
And again, that includes all the amounts, including the $20,000.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
Manley appeals, appeals handled by Mr. Lobbin.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
This sanctions issue is not mentioned in the appeal briefing by Manley.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
They don't dispute it, and this court affirms.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
On September 11th.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
But on those subsequent documents, I don't have them right in front of me right now, but they didn't call out, did they call out the $20,000 sanction in the subsequent orders?

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
I don't believe so, but I think if you- OK, so what do you, I mean, his argument, you heard his argument.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
His argument is that-

[00:14:59] Speaker 03:
It was in the first order, but then there were subsequent orders, and he fairly read those as having dropped the $20,000 sanction against him.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
Yeah, and that is an impossible reading.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
And there's a couple reasons for that.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
One is it doesn't say that he's been held jointly and severally liable with Manley.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
It doesn't revoke it at all.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
Second point to be made is that as we lay out in our briefing, and it hasn't ever been responded to, there's a difference between sanctioning a non-party and entering judgment against a party.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
When an attorney is sanctioned, there's no judgment entered.

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
There's a sanctions order.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
and a following on contempt proceeding.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
So it was only natural and in accordance with precedent that the judgment only reflected manly.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
But we know that Mr. Robbins' position now is not truthful and correct.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
Because on September 11, 2013, three weeks after this judgment that he now says he thinks let him off the hook, he wrote a letter to the court assuring the court that he understood he had to pay and saying, the full amount of that $20,000 has been placed on squarely and solely on my personal shoulders alone.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
by my law firm and by my client.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
No mention at all of saying, judge, can you clarify this?

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
It would have been easy to do.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
Instead, the exact opposite position that's being taken today.

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
The exact opposite.

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
And that's docket 834.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
So in our papers, and all we addressed in the opening part really was jurisdiction.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
In our papers, we explain why, and I think your honors have addressed this in your opening comments with Mr. Lavin,

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
He can't appeal the March 30th order because he won.

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
And it's too late to appeal the sanctions order because it's not timely.

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
One defect in our briefing, which I apologize for, is we should have cited to the court

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
the case that was cited in Mr. Lobin's Notice of Appeal, which is really the governing case on when you appeal a sanctions order.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
And that's Sanders Associates versus Summographics, 2, Fed, 3rd, 394.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
And that's a Federal Circuit opinion, 1993, in which the Federal Circuit discusses at some length the different views and the different circuits as to when an attorney who's been sanctioned can appeal that order.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
And the holding in the federal circuit, the law in the federal circuit is you have to wait until final judgment.

[00:17:30] Speaker 00:
It's not a collateral order unless there's some unusual circumstance.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
So his appeal should have been filed within 30 days of the August 21, 2013 judgment.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
So it's not timely.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
The court doesn't have jurisdiction.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
And I'm going to sit down because it's really a straightforward issue.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
What we don't hear in the briefing

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
What we don't hear in today's argument and what we can't hear is that

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
Even if the court has jurisdiction and is addressing this order, is there some reason that Judge Erickson and Magistrate Judge Mehran got this wrong?

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
It's a 20-page sanctions order.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
There's no question that the findings that Mr. Lobbin clearly neglected his duty and violated the law and is deserving of sanction.

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
That's not in dispute.

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
So if the court reaches the merits, it's really a straightforward issue.

[00:18:25] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:18:26] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:18:37] Speaker 02:
I take exception to being called untruthful and for counsel raising the underlying issues, which are not on appeal, the underlying conduct that resulted in sanctions.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
I've been an attorney for 20 years.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
I've never been sanctioned.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
I went to UCLA law school.

[00:18:51] Speaker 02:
I was on law review.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
I went to University of Virginia.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
I'm not the kind of lawyer that gets sanctioned.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
I got sanctioned.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
You know why?

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
Because my client Manley,

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
is completely obnoxious, my former client, and doesn't follow the court's instructions or my advice.

[00:19:07] Speaker 02:
So yes, I got caught and I got sanctioned.

[00:19:09] Speaker 02:
And this is more about manly than me.

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
If you read the orders, you'll see them.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
But that's not an issue on this appeal.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
And I resent him for bringing it up, because it's just to cast aspersions at me and make me look like some ungrateful, incompetent attorney, which I'm not.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
So the issue of why I was sanctioned and the underlying conduct, it was a 36 deposition, and the court decided, you know what, you should have been better prepared.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
Fine.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
The issue here is, what did the district court do in those orders?

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
And can't we do better?

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
Instead of letting counsel twist in the wind for 19 months to have me pay $20,000 on a credit card right before Christmas that impacts my family and my future,

[00:19:51] Speaker 02:
Why don't we hold district courts to a standard that says, be clear?

[00:19:56] Speaker 02:
Courts do two things.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
Courts issue injunctions telling parties you can do something or not do something.

[00:20:01] Speaker 02:
And courts issue judgments that require people to pay money.

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
Well, then issue a judgment that says, Lobbin, pay money.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
You don't even have to put a deadline on it, although that's proper, too, by a certain time.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
What did the court do here?

[00:20:17] Speaker 02:
It issued sanctions against Manley

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
my client and said, oh, by the way, Lava, you're jointly and severally liable.

[00:20:23] Speaker 02:
This was not an order of sanctions against me.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
Don't courts issue judgments with respect to parties?

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
And this was sanctioned.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
But you weren't a party.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
This was a sanction against Manley, the party.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
That's why it goes in final judgment.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
That's why it goes in final judgment.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
Well, there's a difference between a money judgment and a sanctions order, right?

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
Well, not when it's joint and several.

[00:20:43] Speaker 02:
This was not an independent money sanction against me.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
This was, oh, Lava, by the way, you're jointly and severally.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
The main sanction was against Manley, the client.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
That's why it went into the final judgment.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
All the court needed to do was say, you know, here's the final judgment.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
Manley, you pay everything.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
And oh, by the way, on that $20,000 piece, your attorney's jointly and severely liable.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
There's your final judgment.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
The court didn't do that.

[00:21:08] Speaker 02:
All the court has is the written word.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
Please be clear, it wasn't to cause grave impact to me, and I think that deserves a reversal.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
We thank both the counsel and the case's superintendent.