Attorney facing kidnapping charges declared vexatious litigant

A Beverly Hills attorney facing felony kidnapping and child custody deprivation charges has been declared a vexatious litigant by a Court of Appeal, which cited a lengthy history of unsuccessful lawsuits, appeals and writ petitions he pursued while representing himself.

In a nine-page order issued Monday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division 3, barred Tristram T. Buckley from filing new litigation in California state courts without first obtaining judicial permission.

The ruling comes as Buckley faces a three-count criminal complaint filed May 12 by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, alleging that he kidnapped a child, interfered with custodial rights, and injured a woman with whom he had a dating relationship.

According to the complaint, Buckley forcibly took and detained the child on Feb. 12, moving the child to another part of Los Angeles County. Prosecutors charged him with felony kidnapping under Penal Code Section 207(a) and felony child custody deprivation under Section 278.5(a).

A third count alleges that Buckley inflicted corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a woman on Jan. 21. That charge, brought under Penal Code Section 273.5(a), is a misdemeanor.

Buckley is free on $250,000 bond and is due in Department 31 of the Airport Courthouse on Dec. 7 for a preliminary hearing, according to the district attorney's office.

A consumer warning has been placed on his State Bar profile.

Buckley did not respond to an email seeking comment.

In the separate vexatious litigant case, the appellate court identified 10 lawsuits, appeals and writ petitions that Buckley pursued without counsel and that were resolved against him. California law allows courts to declare someone a vexatious litigant after at least five qualifying proceedings have been decided adversely to that person within seven years.

"The foregoing establishes that Buckley is a vexatious litigant within the meaning of section 391," the court wrote.

The proceedings included lawsuits against BMW of North America, NBC Universal and Sprint Corp., along with several unsuccessful petitions challenging judicial disqualification rulings in litigation against Santa Monica attorney Scott F. Pomerantz.

"I represented Mr. Buckley on a limited representation basis for trial in a case that settled successfully. After the settlement, Mr. Buckley refused to allow me to withdraw the agreed upon fee from the settlement proceeds," Pomerantz explained in an email.

In a May motion seeking the designation, Pomerantz described years of missed deadlines, procedural disputes and unusual explanations that he contended had prolonged their litigation.

Buckley repeatedly blamed computer problems for late or defective filings, according to the motion, including Microsoft software updates that allegedly caused documents to disappear and electronic filing systems that froze or rejected submissions.

On one occasion, Buckley sought to add Microsoft Corp. as a defendant, alleging that the company had "trespassed on my computer, commandeered my computer, terminated MS Word" and caused him to lose dozens of documents.

Buckley also cited medical problems, including complications from a colonoscopy, a herniated disc and a thumb injury that prevented him from typing, according to filings quoted in Pomerantz's motion.

The disputes extended into the courtroom.

At a March 2024 hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark H. Epstein sharply criticized Buckley's objections to every exhibit on Pomerantz's list, including emails the two attorneys had allegedly exchanged.

"Your exhibit list is the very definition of bad faith," Epstein told Buckley, according to a transcript quoted in the motion.

Pomerantz also recounted an episode in January 2025 when Buckley failed to appear for the first day of trial. Buckley subsequently explained that he had misunderstood a court calendar entry and embarked on a family road trip that left him outside cellphone range for the day.

Epstein rejected the explanation.

"I do not find Mr. Buckley's explanation to be credible or truthful," the judge said, according to a transcript quoted in the motion. He described Buckley's conduct as sanctionable and disrespectful of the court but permitted him to reopen his case.

Buckley also filed three unsuccessful attempts to disqualify Epstein, prompting appellate petitions that were among the proceedings cited in Monday's vexatious litigant order.

Pomerantz argued that Buckley's conduct had transformed a dispute over attorney fees into an eight-year court battle.

The appellate panel based its designation on Buckley's history of unsuccessful litigation, rather than making separate findings on all the alleged courtroom misconduct described in Pomerantz's motion.

Buckley disputed whether several cases qualified as adverse determinations, arguing that lawsuits against BMW and Sprint ultimately produced favorable settlements despite earlier dismissals. The appellate court rejected those arguments, noting that he had not supplied supporting settlement agreements.

Buckley's history of litigation was reported in the Daily Journal in 2001, when columnist Garry Abrams chronicled his lawsuit against Giants Entertainment, a low-budget film company that had hired him to oversee its business affairs.

Buckley alleged that he had been forced to handle approximately 20 pending lawsuits, mostly brought by unpaid vendors, while working in a filthy apartment without adequate office equipment or support staff.

"Rather than paying bills and meeting his financial obligations, Dadon seemingly preferred to engage in lawsuit after lawsuit," Buckley alleged in his complaint, referring to company owner David Dadon.

Buckley, who represented himself, sought more than $1 million in damages. Dadon's attorney characterized the dispute as essentially a claim for $40,000 in unpaid salary.

Two years later, the litigation had taken a turn.

In an August 2003 follow-up, Abrams reported that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Dunn had entered a default judgment of approximately $44,000 against Buckley in a malpractice action brought by the Giants.

The company accused Buckley of inadequately representing it in litigation and alleged that he had "intentionally sabotaged" some of its cases. Buckley disputed the judgment, saying he had not been properly served and expected to have it set aside.

In the current appellate proceedings, Buckley's underlying appeal was dismissed July 29 after he failed to file an opening brief. The court nevertheless retained jurisdiction to consider Pomerantz's motion to declare him a vexatious litigant.

Buckley did not respond to a September order to show cause and did not appear at an Oct. 14 hearing, according to the ruling.

Presiding Justice Rashida A. Adams, Justice Mark A. Hanasono and Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jessica M. Delgado, sitting by designation, issued the order.

"Henceforth, he may not file any new litigation in a court of this state without first obtaining leave of the presiding judge or justice," the panel wrote.

The case is Pomerantz v. Buckley, B347597 (2nd Dist. Ct. App., Oct. 26, 2026).