Truitt
Truitt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Opinion
Opinion
Grignon, J.
Plaintiff and petitioner Lawrence A. Truitt seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its order imposing evidentiary sanctions against him for his attorneys’ violation of California Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 2-100, which prohibits ex parte communications with a represented opposing party. We conclude no improper ex parte communication took place, because Truitt’s attorneys had no actual knowledge of any representation of defendant and real party in interest the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (AT&SF) at the time of the communication. Accordingly, respondent court abused its discretion by imposing evidentiary sanctions against Truitt. We grant the petition.
Facts and Procedural Background
Truitt, an employee of AT&SF, was injured at work on March 14, 1996, when he was struck by a front-end loader operated by Keearn John Slowe. Truitt retained the law firm of Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler & Klevens (FFOR&K) to represent him in bringing an action against AT&SF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) ( 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.). On February 6, 1997, Attorney Richard L. Rosett of FFOR&K wrote to Russ Shelton in the claims…