New CA Civil Procedure Case

 

 

 

I can help. I've been a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates since 1995, and I've been listed in The Best Lawyers in America every year since 2012. I've represented both plaintiffs and defendants in business, insurance bad faith and coverage, personal injury, real property and wrongful death cases, I've recovered over $50 million for plaintiff clients, and obtained numerous defense verdicts and good settlements for defense clients. I've tried over 100 jury, court and administrative trials and arbitrations. For many years, I've provided mentoring to many less experienced lawyers in California.

 

Working with me, you can quickly develop the skills, strategies, and systems necessary to build you dream law practice. How will it feel to be a successful and highly respected lawyer in your practice areas? Today is the day to start creating your future. 

 

Click the link to learn more about Master Lawyer Mentoring™, or email me at [email protected] or call me at (619) 990-4312.

 

To get my free summaries of the 22 new civil cases published by the California Supreme Court in 2021, click here.

Below is a discussion of a new CA civil case published last month.

Discovery Sanctions

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 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.)