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 petitions for reconsideration were filed with willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings, were indisputably without merit, and caused significant delays and resource waste, warranting full sanctions.
From the decision · page 5Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett halted trial proceedings in eight cases by filing petitions for reconsideration that were indisputably without merit and filed for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay. Most of these petitions were filed on the morning of trial without any advance notice to the court, opposing counsel, or witnesses. Their conduct was deliberate, which is evidenced by both the pattern of filing such petitions in eight separate cases and their failure to appear in each of these cases after the petition for reconsideration was filed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett filed eight petitions for reconsideration on or near the day of trial after their requests for continuances were denied, causing immediate halt of trial proceedings.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This conduct was found to be willful, without merit, and intended to disrupt or delay proceedings, justifying sanctions.
From the decision · page 5