Bruno

Bruno v. Superior Court

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 424·219 Cal. App. 3d 1359·269 Cal. Rptr. 142
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1990A048089California2,290 words

Opinion

Opinion

Channell, J.

This petition presents the question of whether the superior court may permit discovery in a small claims appeal. We conclude that discovery is not available. However, we conclude that respondent court abused its discretion in sanctioning petitioner’s attorney for his attempt to obtain discovery.

I. Facts

On August 24, 1989, real party in interest, Arnold S. Gridley, filed an unlawful detainer action in small claims court against petitioner Diana Lynn Bruno. The complaint asked for back rent commencing in March 1989 and for the possession of the property in which petitioner had resided since 1976. On September 20, 1989, judgment was entered in real party’s favor for $2,000 and real party was awarded possession of the apartment at 600 Stanyan Street in San Francisco. On October 3, 1989, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with respondent court.

On October 4, 1989, petitioner, who was now represented by counsel, noticed the deposition of real party and Ms. Lilly Daily, real party’s bookkeeper, who had appeared as a witness in small claims court to present bookkeeping evidence of overdue rent. Also on October 4, 1989, petitioner propounded to real party a set of Judicial…

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.