Do

Do v. Superior Court

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 1210·135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 855·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 907·2003 Daily Journal DAR 6699·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5291
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 18, 2003No. G031415California3,039 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

Steven P. Rice is the attorney for petitioner Christie Julie Do, the defendant in the trial court. Because Do is indigent, Rice is *1212 representing her free of charge. Petitioner seeks relief from an order denying her request for monetary discovery sanctions. Even though plaintiff, real party in interest Quang Thanh Nguyen, twice failed to appear for noticed depositions, the court denied the request, concluding it had no power to order sanctions in favor of a party represented by a lawyer acting without charge. We disagree with this conclusion and therefore issue a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to award monetary sanctions to petitioner.

Facts

The Public Law Center (PLC), a nonprofit public-interest law firm sponsored by the Orange County Bar Association, solicits members of that association to represent indigent litigants free of charge. When real party in interest sued petitioner, an indigent, non-English-speaking immigrant, alleging breach of a loan agreement, petitioner sought the assistance of PLC. PLC helped her prepare and file an answer asserting the written loan agreement was obtained by fraud. As the action progressed, PLC became aware the matter…

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.