Bergman

Bergman v. Rifkind & Sterling, Inc.

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 177·227 Cal. App. 3d 1380·278 Cal. Rptr. 583·91 Daily Journal DAR 2473·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1568
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 1991B050024California1,730 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

We reverse an order imposing sanctions.

Facts

Norman Bergman sued Rifkind & Sterling, among others, for damages. Irv M. Gross and his firm, Robinson, Diamant, Brill & Klausner, represent two of the defendants.

Mr. Gross prepared a motion for summary judgment with a 22 i/z-page supporting memorandum of points and authorities. As Mr. Gross knew, the Los Angeles Superior Court insists that “[n]o . . . memorandum of points and authorities shall exceed 15 pages in length except by permission of the trial judge.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 801, § 13.) Mr. Gross therefore prepared an application and went to department 84, where his motion would be heard, to seek leave to file his 221/2-page memorandum.

When he presented his papers to the clerk in department 84, Mr. Gross was informed that the judge (Hon. John Zebrowski) did not require formal applications and the clerk gave Mr. Gross a copy of department 84’s policy. A “Notice to Attorneys Re: Fifteen Page Rule” informed Mr. Gross that “[t]his department does not encourage the filing of papers in excess of 15 pages. However, if you feel that more than 15 pages are legitimately required to present your…

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.