Tovella

Tovella v. Megarit CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 2024G061468California525 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goethals, J.

FACTS

Tovella filed a complaint against Megarit alleging causes of action including for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Megarit filed an answer. Following discovery, Tovella filed a motion to compel interrogatory responses; he also sought monetary sanctions. The court granted the discovery motion but denied the request for sanctions on procedural grounds. When he received no further discovery responses, Tovella filed a motion to strike Megarit’s answer and enter his default. Tovella again requested monetary sanctions. The court granted the motion and ordered Megarit to pay sanctions and provide discovery responses.1 The trial court ordered a mandatory settlement conference; Megarit did not appear. The court calendared an order to show cause (OSC) regarding whether it should strike Megarit’s answer. The order stated, “[f]ailure to appear at the [OSC] . . . will result in sanctions including striking the answer and possible entry of default.” Megarit again failed to appear at

1 On appeal, Megarit contends the court then struck his answer and entered his default. In the trial court he asserted the court did not enter his default until after a later…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.