Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sui v. Landi
Citations: 163 Cal. App. 3d 383; 209 Cal. Rptr. 449; 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1499Docket: A025246
Court: California Court of Appeal; January 3, 1985; California; State Appellate Court
Carol Landi appeals the denial of her motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction issued against her by the trial court. The injunction arose from Landi's claims of ownership over properties belonging to Norman and Dorothy Sui, based on a purported "federal land patent" linked to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. After Landi recorded her documents against the Suis' properties and attempted to evict their tenants, the Suis filed a complaint against her for slander of title and interference with a contract. The court initially granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction preventing Landi from further actions regarding the properties. Landi's appeal raises two main issues: claims of extrinsic fraud in obtaining the injunction and a challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction over the case, arguing it pertains to federal patents and copyrights. However, her appeal is based on a partial clerk's transcript, which prevents a full review of the evidence, leading to a presumption that the evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The court affirms the trial court's decision and imposes sanctions on Landi for pursuing what it deems a frivolous appeal, noting her intentional choice to limit the appeal's costs by not providing a comprehensive reporter's transcript, despite her experience as a litigant. The inability to review the facts supporting the Suis' action and the court's injunction has rendered the appeal frivolous, vexatious, and without merit. This appeal has incurred significant legal expenses and unnecessary concern for respondents at both trial and appellate levels, resulting in an unjust burden on California taxpayers. The costs associated with processing this meritless appeal, including judicial and administrative resources, far exceed the imposed penalty. The order denying the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction is affirmed, and a penalty of $5,000 is levied against Carol Landi, recoverable by Norman and Dorothy Sui. Both Low, P.J. and Haning, J. concurred, and Landi's petition for a Supreme Court hearing was denied on March 20, 1985. Notably, Landi only requested her own moving papers and specific court orders for the clerk's transcript, explicitly excluding any reporter's transcript or other documents, which limited the court's access to the Suis' original and amended complaints and evidence for the injunction. Additionally, Landi's petition for a writ of mandate contained nearly 200 pages of her own documentation, including motions for summary judgment and disqualification of opposing counsel.