Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In the Matter of

April 28, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF
HECTOR GARCIA,
PETITIONER FOR REINSTATEMENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Remke, P. J.

PUBLIC MATTER - NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

Petitioner Hector Garcia resigned from the practice of law with charges pending, effective April 2, 2003. On November 6, 2009, he attempted to file a petition for reinstatement with the State Bar Court. The petition was rejected by the court clerk and returned by mail because, among other stated reasons, it was not accompanied by a conforming proof of service under the applicable rules. On November 20, 2009, Garcia filed a second petition with another improper proof of service, which the clerk rejected. Garcia successfully filed his petition for reinstatement on January 21, 2010.

Effective January 1, 2010, the California Rules of Court were modified to include a requirement that, at the time of filing for reinstatement, the petitioner must provide proof of passing the Attorneys' Examination administered by the Committee of Bar Examiners within three years before filing the petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.10(f).) Garcia's petition did not include such proof. Accordingly, the hearing judge granted the motion of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (State Bar) to dismiss Garcia's petition based on this omission. The hearing judge also simultaneously denied Garcia's request to designate

November 20, 2009, rather than January 21, 2010, as the date his petition was filed. Garcia seeks review of the hearing judge's dismissal order.

Based on our de novo review of the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we find that the court clerk properly rejected Garcia's petition for reinstatement because it did not comply with the applicable rules. We also reject his request to designate November 20, 2009 as the filing date of his petition, and affirm the hearing judge's dismissal order.

I. FACTUAL FINDINGS *fn1

Garcia attempted to file a petition for reinstatement with the State Bar Court on November 6, 2009. The court clerk rejected the petition for filing and returned it by mail. Along with the petition, the clerk included a form rejection notice that lists six standard reasons for rejecting a pleading and includes a space for "other" reasons. The clerk's November 6, 2009 rejection notice checked the following three standard reasons for rejection of the petition:

The pleading is not accompanied by a proof of service that (a) bears an original signature; (b) sets forth the date upon which service was made; and (c) contains the exact title of the pleading(s) served. (See rules 61 and 62, Rules Proc. for State Bar Ct. Proceedings; Rule 1112, Rules of Practice of State Bar Ct.)

The pleading presented for filing does not contain an original, handwritten signature. "Pleading" refers to the original of any separate pleading or other paper submitted for filing (for instance, if a motion and memorandum of points and authorities are presented as separate documents, each document must contain an original, handwritten signature). (See rule 1112,

Rules of Practice of State Bar Ct.)

The original is not accompanied by the requisite number of copies. (See rule 1112, Rules of

Practice of State Bar Ct.)

The rejection notice also advised Garcia to "Please Refer to the [sic] Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California 660-666," which sets forth the requirements for a reinstatement petition. On November 20, 2009, Garcia attempted to file a second petition. The proof of service attached to this second petition merely recited the service of the first petition. After indicating the steps taken during the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.