Olmstead

Olmstead v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

Good Law
104 Cal. App. 4th 858·128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 573
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2003A097117California3,890 words

Opinion

Opinion

This case presents the question whether Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 applies, after 1994, to bad-faith actions or tactics that do not involve pleadings, while Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 governs pleading abuses. [1] We. hold that the language of section 128.5 and the example of federal sanctions law, on which the Legislature modelled section 128.7, make it clear that the two statutes apply concurrently to different kinds of misconduct. [2]

This case also presents the question whether a directly false response to discovery may qualify as a "misuse of the discovery process" subject to sanctions under section 2023, subdivision (a). We hold that section 2023 does encompass such conduct.

Our conclusions require us to reverse the trial court's denial of motions seeking sanctions under sections 128.5 and 2023.

Arthur J. Gallagher & Company, an insurance broker, and its employee Vicki Sundgren (collectively, "Gallagher") appeal from post-trial orders denying their motions for an award of attorney fees. Gallagher claimed that plaintiffs Carleen Olmstead and Cherie Rose engaged in a variety of sanctionable misconduct in their unsuccessful action to…

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.