WRONGDOING AND BAD FAITH: A DOCUMENTED RECORD
Court after court has censured Graham Berry and ordered he pay sanctions for wrongdoing. Berry’s abusive litigation against the Church of Scientology is so severe, he is officially designated a vexatious litigant and was suspended from practice by the California State Bar. Documents from clients, courts and the bar illustrate Berry’s bad faith and misconduct.
“I’ll direct you now, Mr. Berry, do not file with this Court documents that have no basis in law.”
…
“[I]t was clear that the objections had absolutely no legal basis, and were simply used to stop the deposition, and to hinder the deposition.”
Judge Donald Abram, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, in Religious Technology Center, et al. v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., et al., April 16, 1997
“The Court: Mr. Berry, would you just keep your mouth shut for a minute?”
“[T]here’s something about your attitude, like you just come in with the assumption that I’m trying to do something, or we’re trying to do something, to be unfair to you. …
“I’ve tried to bend over backwards to be fair to both sides in this case, and I’m going to continue to try to be so.
“But some of your comments and the way you say them make it very hard not to get angry.”
Judge Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in Religious Technology Center v. H. Keith Henson, May 22, 1998
“Sanctions in the sum of $2,800.00 are awarded in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff [Berry].”
“The Defendant’s request for [sic] pursuant to CCP Section 128.7 is granted. … Said sanctions are payable forthwith.”
Judge William C. Beverly, Jr., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Samuel D. Rosen, August 6, 1998
“I very seldom give sanctions—very seldom—but this is outrageous, counsel. Outrageous.”
…
“[W]e’ll award sanctions in the sum of $500 payable by Mr. Berry to the firm of Moxon & Kobrin payable on or before the 15th of October 1998.”
Discovery Referee, ret. California Supreme Court Justice David N. Eagleson, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Glenn Barton, et al., September 15, 1998
“Mr. Berry, I really expect a complaint that is—has a purpose to it that is not engaged in something that goes out on the internet, which is a rambling tale of irrelevancy.”
…
“And if we get a complaint back that is like this complaint, I really am going to listen to sanctions, and consider the efforts these defendants have put into the matter up until now and in other courts….”
Judge Christina A. Snyder, United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Michael Philip Pattinson v. Church of Scientology International and Religious Technology Center, September 28, 1998
“Sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00 are awarded in favor of Moxon & Kobrin and against Graham E. Berry, plaintiff in pro per, and his attorney, Christian J. Scali, jointly and severally….”
“Sanctions in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) are awarded to Moxon & Kobrin against Graham Berry….”
Judge Alexander H. Williams III, Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Glenn Barton, et al., November 3, 1998
“Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is granted. Plaintiff [Berry] is to pay to Counsel for the Defendant the sum of $2,523.00 within 30 days.”
Judge Alexander H. Williams III, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Robert J. Cipriano, November 13, 1998
“ORDERED that Mr. Chait is awarded the costs specified, which are found to be reasonable, in the amount of $20,703.50.”
Judge Alexander H. Williams III, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Robert J. Cipriano, et al., March 26, 1999
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Glenn Barton is dismissed from this action and is awarded the costs specified in the amount of $27,470.21.”
Judge Alexander H. Williams III, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Glenn Barton, et al., April 8, 1999
“The above-described conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in this case [Berry] supports a finding of bad faith.”
…
“[T]he Court finds that the repeated filing of complaints naming Moxon without demonstrating any factual support for the allegations violated Rule 11. [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 that prohibits frivolous and unwarranted contentions in litigation and allows courts to sanction attorneys for violations.]”
“The Court therefore finds that the award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to defendant Moxon would be warranted under Rule 11 in the alternative.”
Judge Christina A. Snyder, United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Michael P. Pattinson v. Church of Scientology et al., April 15, 1999
“Graham Berry (‘Berry’), acted in bad faith by pursuing meritless claims against defendant Moxon in this action.”
“The Court determined that filings by Berry following the dismissal of the first amended complaint on September 28, 1998, created an unnecessary multiplication of the proceedings….”
…
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court awards defendant Moxon the total sum of $28,484.72 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.”
Judge Christina A. Snyder, United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Michael P. Pattinson v. Church of Scientology et al., July 19, 1999
“The Court: You [Berry] lose on that. You are toast on that. You’ve lost.”
“I’ll only say this one more time. You could have your depo of the plaintiff if you could articulate some potential, possible, conceivable, arguably articulable defense to a money had and received action, which you have failed to do.
“Mr. Berry: Statute of Limitations, your Honor.
“The Court: You lose on that. You are toast on that. You’ve lost.”
Judge David H. Brickner, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, in Michael Reveillere v. Michael Pattinson, April 20, 1999
“[I]f there is such a thing on God’s green earth as a vexatious litigant you sir, sadly, are it.”
…
“[Q]uite frankly this court has seen the dumping of huge amounts of borderline irrelevant material with undue glee by Mr. Berry because it is in his judgment and my observation a license to bash and trash. I have seen it. I have watched it and it’s time for somebody to call it what it is and that is what it is.”
Judge Alexander H. Williams III, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Robert Cipriano, August 20, 1999
“The Court hereby finds Graham E. Berry to be a vexatious litigant….”
“Effective immediately, Graham E. Berry is required to comply with the procedures set forth in C.C.P. §391.7.”
Judge Alexander H. Williams III, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, in Graham E. Berry v. Robert J. Cipriano, et al., August 20, 1999
“The Defendants shall have and recover from the Plaintiff, Robert Jeavons, and/or his attorney, Graham Berry, reasonable attorney fees in the sum of $3,000.00, and costs in the sum of $23.00.”
Judge David Doi, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in Robert Jeavons v. Church of Scientology International, September 10, 1999
“Defendant is awarded fees and costs of $12,500.00 payable jointly and severally by plaintiff Pattinson and counsel for plaintiff, Graham E. Berry.”
Judge David L. Minning, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in Michael Philip Pattinson v. David Miscavige, November 12, 1999
State Bar findings suspending Graham Berry: “Respondent’s current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing.”
California State Bar, Stipulation re facts, conclusions of law and disposition and order approving actual suspension, October 29, 2001
“It is ordered that GRAHAM EDWARD BERRY, State Bar No. 128503, be suspended from the practice of law….”
“…that he be placed on probation for 18 months subject to the conditions of probation, including 9 months actual suspension and restitution, recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its order approving stipulation filed on October 29, 2001, as modified by its order filed November 26, 2001.”
Marvin R. Baxter, Acting Chief Justice for Supreme Court of California En Banc, In Re Graham Edward Berry on Discipline, April 11, 2002
