Roe

Roe v. Superior Court

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073·224 Cal. App. 3d 642·273 Cal. Rptr. 745
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 9, 1990E008269California1,940 words

Opinion

Opinion

Timlin, J.

Petitioner Gerald N. Roe, plaintiff in the underlying action, filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the lower court to grant his motion to compel answers to interrogatories and to require the production of documents. We requested an informal response pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 626 , 681 P.2d 893 ], and now determine that the writ should issue.

Facts

Due to the limited record, the nature of the underlying lawsuit is not entirely clear. However, it involves a sale of real property from defendant Ethel Esepenth, and the unexpected effect of certain building restrictions.

Plaintiff filed an at-issue memorandum on September 20, 1989, and the case was thereafter ordered to arbitration. However, before the arbitration could be held, plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint. At the same time, on February 28, 1990, the trial court struck the at-issue memorandum. This had the effect of vacating the arbitration proceedings, including the hearing date of March 8, 1990.

On March 12, plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production on defendant. Defendant failed to respond in a timely…

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.