Et tu, Sammie

Oh no, tell me it ain’t so. Lisa Helfend Meyer got sued by Ya-Ya Holdings! Sure did; check out BC 695400 Dept. 52 with the Honorable Judge Armen Tamzarian presiding. Ya-Ya??

 

A whole bunch of people involved: Kenneth J. Freed, attorney for Lisa Helfend Meyer; Sophie Gennari, aka Sophie Turner, Defendant; Sagar P. Parikh, attorney for plaintiff; Nader Zargarpour, attorney for Defendant. All these lawyers and more fees, LMAO……sometimes it just ain’t worth it!  This has been going on since 2/28/18 or thereabout. I understand there are some real Hum Dingers in this complaint.  We will have the entire transcript up and soon.  All good rich-people stuff, “let’s go shopping in my Rolls Royce,” Goofy stuff like that, and more. I know, you can’t make this stuff up!  Even Lisa’s best friend Samantha Spector was involved at one point; that too is interesting. Samantha did nothing wrong we understand. It was reported that Spector actually testified against poor old Lisa!   OMG, you can’t make this stuff up.

 

I hope you upped your shares of Charmin….

My prediction is this. Judge Tamzarian is not going to like what went on and will find against Lisa Helfend Meyer.  Judge Tamzarian is not a fan of outrageous fees, which has been evident to me when I would sit in his court and watch him deny requests for large legal fees.  Lawyers such as Lisa Helfend Meyer thrive on large and ridiculous fees.   I am guessing that, based on this case, it is all about money, or the lack of, or promise made and not kept? We will have it all up for your reading enjoyment very soon. (edit: download link below story)

 

Other interesting Lisa Helfend Meyer stuff: ANKA V ANKA.  You know when it rains, it just pours…just take care of “20,” and all will be fine.

 

The Court of Appeals said attorney Lisa Helfend Meyer harmed the child, the child’s father, and the entire court system.  (this was taken from Lawzilla.com) Lisa Helfend Meyer objected to and appealed the trial court’s issuance of $50,000 in sanctions against the attorney personally, also extending the liability to her client.  The sanction was due to the fact that Ms. Meyer allegedly disclosed confidential information from a child custody evaluation in her direct examination of a party in a separate court case.  Family Code Sections 3025.5 and 3111 describe the confidentiality of such information and the ability of the Court to sanction Parties for willful disclosure. However, these statutes have never been applied at the Courts of Appeals, making this case a case of first impression.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions against Lisa Helfend Meyer but reversed as to her client, stating, “Most clients assume their attorney’s questions are proper and will not expose them to sanctions. There is no suggestion that Anna thought otherwise.”

 

Ya-Ya v Meyer

 

By John Nazarian
©Straight Talk with John J. Nazarian, Private Investigator
May 1, 2021
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

Leave a Reply