New CA Civil Procedure CaseNov 08, 2022
To do the best job possible as a mediator, arbitrator and referee, I review and summarize every new published California civil case. In this blog post, I discuss a new civil case that was published last month.
The California Civil Discovery Act sets forth the rules for discovery that can be conducted under California law. There are many provisions authorizing trial courts to impose sanctions against a party. Last month, the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision addressing the issue of whether the trial court had properly granted a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. To find out what they decided, watch the video above and read my summary of the case below.
New CA Civil Procedure Decision
City of L.A. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2022 WL 12010415: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, filed nine months after the case was dismissed, that awarded sanctions in the sum of $2.5 million. The Court of Appeal held that monetary discovery sanctions may be imposed under section 2023.030 only to the extent authorized by another provision of the Discovery Act. Section 2023.010 describes conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, but does not authorize the imposition of sanctions. The plain language of the statutory scheme does not provide for monetary sanctions to be imposed based solely on the definitional provisions of sections 2023.010 or 2023.030, whether construed separately or together. The trial court erred, because the award of monetary sanctions was not authorized by the statutes cited. The trial court’s order was reversed and remanded to allow defendant to present the issue of sanctions to the trial court for determination under the correct law. The Court of Appeal also held that when a trial court is authorized under a provision of the Discovery Act to impose monetary sanctions, the court retains jurisdiction after the lawsuit is dismissed to rule on the issue of discovery sanctions as a collateral matter. Regarding the issue of whether the sanctions motion was timely filed, the Court of Appeal held that the timeliness of a motion for monetary sanctions following a successful discovery motion is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, and no abuse of the court’s discretion was shown in this case. (C.A. 2nd, October 20, 2022.)
I help attorneys and their clients throughout California serving as a mediator, arbitrator and referee at ADR Services, Inc., handling business, commercial, employment, insurance bad faith, insurance coverage, landlord-tenant (commercial and residential), legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death cases. I'm an expert in new California civil case law and using Zoom. I've been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980 and a member of ABOTA since 1995. I've represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of civil cases including the areas listed above. To schedule a new matter, please contact my case manager at ADR services, Ins., Haward Cho, [email protected], (213) 683-1600.
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
California Case Summaries™
Master Lawyer Mentoring™
CA Civil Trial Attorney Since 1980
ABOTA Member Since 1995
Past President San Diego County Bar Assn., SD ABOTA Chapter
Phone: (619) 990-4312. Email: [email protected]
California Case Summaries
A fast and easy way for California civil attorneys to always know the new case law in their practice areas.
You get a one-paragraph summary readable in 2 minutes, organized by legal topic, of every new California civil case published during the year.