Court of Appeal upholds Lund's petition in one sentence - rejecting Trustees and their counsel's opposition to the right to replace a judge as a matter of law
Lund sees "negligence" and "indifference" to the law in filing by Trustees' law firm, Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp
Lanny Davis
LOS ANGELES, March 5, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Walt Disney's grandson, Bradford D. Lund, today sent a letter to his four trustees – L. Andrew Gifford, Robert L. Wilson, Douglas M. Strode, and the First Republic Trust Company (collectively "the Trustees") – demanding that they refrain from using any trust funds for which he is the beneficiary to pay any legal fees to the Trustees' law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp ("MSK").
Lund won a decisive victory on February 23, 2021 when the California Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the Trustees' and MSK's attempt to block Lund's request for a new judge and issued an alternative writ ordering the lower court judge to vacate his prior order denying the peremptory challenge and issue an order granting the same. Alternatively, the appellate panel issued an Order to Show cause why it should not issue a Writ of Mandate. The appellate panel's decision in favor of Lund was made in a single sentence, rejecting the 33-page filing by MSK at the behest of the "hostile" Trustees, as Lund referred to them in his letter. In its decision, the Court of Appeal cited the clear California precedent virtually ignored by the Trustees' attorneys, MSK, but cited by Lund's lawyers:
"Opposing counsel on behalf of the [Trustees] were finally forced to admit the indisputable precedent of Truck Insurance Exchange and Grant (of which they were aware when Mr. Lund initially requested Judge Suzuki to correct his original denial) that: A previously denied § 170.6 challenge does not remove that party's one opportunity to duly and timely file another." – Lund's Reply to Trustees' Opposition to Writ.
Lund wrote in his letter to the Trustees: "MSK should not be paid legal fees out of my or my sister's trust," citing the summary dismissal of MSK's opposition to his motion.
He continued: "You are also on notice that I continue to believe that each of you individually and collectively have again taken actions hostile to my interests in what I feel is clear violation of your fiduciary duties owed to me. I am still seriously considering taking additional legal action for this and past violations of your duties."
Lund wrote that the Trustees and MSK "should be embarrassed" by the Court of Appeal's summary dismissal and repeated his demand that the Trustees "not use any trust funds associated with the trust of which I am the beneficiary to pay MSK."
Contact: Alex Lange
alange@tridentdmg.com
(202) 480-4309
SOURCE Lanny Davis
No comments:
Post a Comment