Blumenthal

Blumenthal v. Superior Court

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 3d 317·163 Cal. Rptr. 39·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1579
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 1980Civ. 48847California1,097 words

Opinion

Opinion

White, J.

This petition presents the question of whether discovery sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2034, subdivision (d) may be ordered against an attorney where the moving papers seek sanctions only against his clients. We have concluded that the $1,000 award against petitioner must be annulled because petitioner was not given notice and a reasonable opportunity to defend against the sanction.

On August 28, 1979, after petitioner’s client failed to appear for a deposition scheduled for the previous day, real parties in interest, the plaintiffs below, noticed a motion for sanctions. Their notice stated an intention to move the court for an order striking the answers of the defendants and/or rendering a judgment by default against the defendants and/or ordering the defendants to compensate plaintiffs in the sum of $2,500 for attorney’s fees and expenses. No mention was made of sanctions against counsel.

Hearing on the motion was removed from calendar when the parties arranged a settlement of the lawsuit, but default in payments by the defendants resulted in renewal of the motion. Neither real parties’ letter of November 29, 1979, nor their supplemental memorandum…

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.