Weinkauf

Weinkauf v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County

Good Law
1966 Cal. LEXIS 297·51 Cal. Rptr. 100·64 Cal. 2d 662·414 P.2d 36
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 25, 1966S. F. No. 22285California1,060 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Tobriner, J.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of Tuolumne County from enforcing an order directing him to reimburse the real parties in interest in the amount of $500 for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in pursuit of discovery proceedings against petitioner’s client. Since section 2034, subdivision (d), of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes such an order,and since we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in rendering it, petitioner’s sought writ should not issue.

The present controversy arose out of a personal injury damage action in which petitioner served as attorney for the defendant. Plaintiffs and their attorneys, the real parties in interest in the present case, filed and served interrogatories upon defendant and his attorney. Plaintiffs received no reply to these interrogatories or to the letters which they directed to .petitioner for a period of nearly five months. Plaintiffs then moved under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2034, subdivision (d), for orders striking defendant’s answer, entering judgment by default and directing defendant or his att *664 orney to reimburse them for their “reasonable expenses in making this Motion…

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.