Sparks

Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 371·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 938·8 Cal. App. 4th 299·92 Daily Journal DAR 10397·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6541
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 2, 1992A054728California3,121 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order imposing sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5.

I. Background Facts

The parties to this appeal are plaintiff and cross-defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. (appellant), and defendants and cross-complainants Adam Sparks and Pacific Bay Inn, Inc. (respondents). In July 1990 appellant filed a complaint alleging that respondents operated a tourist hotel at Pacific Bay Inn in violation of city laws. The case was consolidated with a prior action filed by the City of San Francisco alleging the same charge. In the city’s action, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction restricting the tourist use at the hotel and finding respondents guilty of contempt on numerous counts. In January 1991 we affirmed the preliminary injunction in the city’s case and sustained six counts of contempt for respondents’ violation of the injunction (CCSF v. Sparks (Jan. 22, 1991) A041905 & A045150 [nonpub. opn.]).

The facts introduced on the present appeal indicate that although trial in the consolidated actions was set for August 12, 1991, and the discovery cutoff date was July 12, 1991, appellant persistently exercised…

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.