Cagle

Cagle v. Armour CA2/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2024B334400California4,850 words

Opinion

Opinion

Egerton, J.

BACKGROUND

Consistent with our standard of review, we state the facts established by the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. (Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 441 (Peake) [sanctions under section 128.7 reviewed for abuse of discretion and presumed correct]; Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711 [under abuse of discretion standard, “trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence”].) Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in May 2021. Her form complaint alleges defendant negligently operated a motor vehicle “thereby causing grievous and serious bodily injuries and damages” to plaintiff.

Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule references are to the California Rules of Court. The complaint also named as defendants Maven Drive, LLC (the company that rented the vehicle to defendant) and Maven LSG, LTD LSR (the company that owned the vehicle).

2 In June 2022, after plaintiff and her counsel Pedroza refused to verify plaintiff’s discovery responses and unilaterally cancelled her deposition with less than a day’s notice, defendant filed a motion to compel and request for sanctions.…

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.