Bradford Lund, Grand-Son of Walt Disney, Asks California Probate Court to Follow California Court Rules and Allow Telephonic Appearances
Lund's Motion Alleges Court Refusal to Allow Telephonic Appearances Violates Due Process and Equal Treatment Protections
09 Mar, 2020, 12:00 ET
LOS ANGELES, March 9, 2020 /PR Newswire/ -- Attorneys for Bradford D. Lund filed a motion in the probate court requesting that the Court adhere to California Rules of Court and allow telephonic appearances in litigation involving the estate of Walt Disney. The motion states that Mr. Lund has had ongoing litigation in the Los Angeles probate court for over a decade, has never been denied a court call, and has appeared at most of the hearings. This motion comes after the Court ordered in December 2019, without explanation, to prohibit telephonic appearances in these proceedings. Additionally, on February 27, 2020, Mr. Lund filed a federal civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Judge David Cowan for alleged violation of Mr. Lund's constitutional due process rights in the appointment of a limited guardian ad lit em.
Mr. Lund's motion points to the hardship imposed by the court order and states that personal appearances at the hearings in Los Angeles, which have been happening for over a decade, are difficult for Mr. Lund, who lives in Arizona. Mr. Lund's motion also argues that the Court's refusal to allow telephonic appearances is contrary to public policy:
"The policy in California is clear: "To improve access to the courts and reduce litigation costs, courts should permit parties, to the extent feasible, to appear by telephone at appropriate conferences, hearings, and proceedings in civil cases." (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.670(a)). Yet, contrary to such public policy, expressed in the plain language of the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.670 (a), as quoted above, the Court denied Mr. Lund's access to the Court altogether for the February Th hearing and refused to permit Mr. Busch's access to the Court by phone when it would have reduced litigation costs of having Mr. Busch travel all the way from Orange County during rush hour to downtown Los Angeles." – Motion to Allow Telephonic Appearances, page 2.
The motion asks the Court to reinstate court call access to Bradford Lund and his counsel to allow for telephonic appearances, arguing such prohibition violates Mr. Lund's due process rights:
"Mr. Lund moves this Court for permission to appear by Court Call and to have one or more of his attorneys appear by Court Call consistent with the procedures set forth in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.670. It is submitted that at certain times personal access to the Court is not economical or logistically possible for either Mr. Lund or all of his counsel. The public policy expressed above within Rule 3.670 itself is also consistent with due process, justice and fairness to Mr. Lund. Mr. Lund also respectfully submits that the failure of the Court to adhere to the same uniform policies of said Rule in his case as in all other cases not only violates his right to due process but also his right to be treated equally, as all other litigants are treated, who come before the Los Angeles County Superior Court." – Motion to Allow Telephonic Appearances, page 3.
"While this violation of court rules on telephonic appearances may seem small, we believe it is emblematic of the continuous due process violations that Mr. Lund has been subjected to since this court ignored the findings of the Arizona Superior Court and is precisely why we recently filed Mr. Lund's civil rights case in federal court," said Lanny J. Davis, co-counsel of record for Mr. Lund in the U.S. federal court civil rights case Lund v. Honorable David J. Co wan. "We have a client that resides in Arizona and is unable at times to be present for hearings that could affect his fate and his inheritance from his grand-father, Walt Disney. And yet for no stated reason based on law or policy, the Court is not permitting telephonic appearances. We strongly oppose such prohibition, and Mr. Lund respectfully asks the judge through this motion to allow him to participate in his case without undue burden."
Contact: Alex Lange, [email protected]
SOURCE Lanny Davis
Share this article