Judge Shellyanne Chang of Sacramento; Dumbo, lifetime porker

The state of California presented Shellyanne Wai Ling Chang with a law license in 1991 after she graduated from Seton Hall University Law School. 

Former Gov. Gray Davis was duped into appointing Shellyanne as a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento in 2002. She wasn’t appointed because she was the most qualified attorney in the Sacramento area, she was appointed because she had proven to be a reliable lackey for the local political hacks.

From the time she received her law license in 1991, Shellyanne has had her significant snout firmly implanted in the public trough. Put simply, she’s been collecting a state check for the past 22 years. Apparently, no self-respecting law firm in the Sacramento area was about to offer her a good paying job.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers of California, Judge Chang was assigned to hear a case involving a dispute over the ownership of a casino in the Sacramento area.

The defendant in the case James Kouretas is a so-called prominent Sacramento attorney and real estate entrepreneur who claims he has political connections with important people. The three plaintiffs alleged that as their attorney, Kouretas is guilty of legal malpractice. They also claimed that Kouretas stole the casino from them.

As an alleged defense to the lawsuit, Kouretas argued that under California law it was a SLAPP suit – a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” that is designed to impede Kouretas’ right to advocate before public agencies for licenses and permits. Chang the Dumbo agreed with Kouretas and threw the case out in March 2011. Making matters worse, the Dumbo then awarded Kouretas his attorney fees.

The plaintiff’s then appealed the Dumbo’s dismissal of their case and award of attorney fees to the 3^rd District Court of Appeals in Sacramento. Two years later on September 4, 2013, a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the Dumbo’s asinine ruling and sent the case back to the Dumbo’s court.

The Appeals Court ruled that Chang erred in deeming the plaintiff’s complaint a SLAPP suit. The court declared that a “complaint against a former attorney alleging negligence and conspiracy to commit fraud does not involve the exercise of protected petitioning activity.”

The Court also vacated the fee award to Kouretas. The Court then said that Kouretas failed to prove he was not the attorney for the three plaintiffs and that “we must accept plaintiffs” contentions that such a professional relationship existed.

The Court of Appeals ruling clearly establishes that Chang is a Certified Dumbo that doesn’t have a clue as to well-settled law on the requirements to dismiss a plaintiff’s case. These requirements are something that a first year law student is taught.