Hood

Hood v. Superior Court

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 508·72 Cal. App. 4th 446·85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 114·99 Daily Journal DAR 4972·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3917
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 1999B129315California1,144 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Marcus M. Hood (a 71-year-old lawyer appearing in propria persona) sued Sears, Roebuck & Co. for damages, alleging that Sears had been “relentlessly oppressive” in its attempts to collect from Hood a “debt which did not exist.” After Sears answered, Hood served on it seven special interrogatories and a few related requests for production of documents. About a week later, Sears served eight special interrogatories on Hood. A dispute arose and both sides filed motions to compel further responses. The trial court, in turn, determined (sua sponte) that it was “necessary to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes” in this action, and directed the parties to each pay one-half of the referee’s fees. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 639, 645.1.) Hood objected, contending a referee was not necessary and that, in any event, it would create a financial hardship for him. The trial court confirmed the reference but directed the referee to hold a hearing to determine Hood’s ability to pay his share of the fees, and ordered Hood “to provide the referee with documentation of his income, whether from his practice of law or otherwise, for the years 1997 and…

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.