What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Appeals Board found that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, which were indisputably without merit, justifying sanctions and costs.
From the decision · page 1We previously granted removal in these matters on our own motion to provide an opportunity to study and address the issues of sanctions and costs under Labor Code section 58131. Having completed our review, we now issue an Order of Consolidation and a Notice of Intent to Impose Sanctions and Costs (En Banc).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed petitions for reconsideration on or near trial dates after being denied continuances, then failed to appear at trial.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This conduct was found to be willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, justifying sanctions and costs.
From the decision · page 11It appears that Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett are each aware that the effect of filing a petition for reconsideration is to halt further proceedings at the trial level. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) It appears that the sole purpose for seeking reconsideration was to delay a trial date after being denied a continuance. The sheer volume of petitions being filed by Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett with similar fact patterns appears to evidence an intentional course of conduct, which further warrants consolidation of these proceedings. Thus, we issue an order consolidating the eight (8) cases discussed above so that we may address the issues of sanctions and reasonable expenses, including costs and attorney's fees.