Hale

Hale v. Laden

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 3d 668·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2687·224 Cal. Rptr. 182
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1986B010979California2,356 words

Opinion

Opinion

Eagleson, J.

Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, without notice, when the alleged indemnitor has entered into a good faith settlement with the claimant. We also impose sanctions against appellant’s attorneys for pursuing a frivolous appeal.

Facts

Hale (appellant) and Laden (respondent) are medical doctors who at the time in question were office associates in the practice of medicine.

On July 12, 1976, Singer went to see Laden complaining of a lump on his left shoulder. Laden was not available on that date and Singer was examined by Hale. Hale diagnosed the lump as a sebaceous cyst. After removing the growth, Hale performed a gross pathological examination of the mass.

Sometime later Singer called Hale, informed him of the regrowth of the lump and offered to return for another examination. Hale assured Singer that there was no need for him to be reexamined since the problem was due to the presence of scar tissue.

On July 8, 1977, Singer returned to the office and was examined for the first and only time by Laden. Laden looked at Singer’s chart, concluded that Singer ha4 a deep…

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.