Maddox

Maddox v. City of Costa Mesa

Good Law
122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629·193 Cal. App. 4th 1098·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 339
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2011No. G043297California3,786 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

Government Code section 68097.2, subdivision (b) provides that when a peace officer is subpoenaed to testify, “[t]he party at whose request the subpoena is issued shall reimburse the public entity for the full cost to the public entity incurred in paying the peace officer . . . .” If the actual expenses prove to be more than the amount deposited, section 68097.2, subdivision (d) provides the difference shall be paid by “the party at whose request the subpoena is issued.”

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the term “the party at whose request the subpoena is issued,” as used in Government Code section 68097.2, subdivisions (b) and (d), means both the litigant and the litigant’s counsel, or just the litigant. In other words, can counsel also be responsible under section 68097.2 for reimbursing the public entity the cost of paying the subpoenaed peace officer? The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings of defendant City of Costa Mesa (the City) 1 and found that plaintiff Chad R. Maddox, an attorney, was responsible for paying costs pursuant to section 68097.2 for subpoenas he requested on behalf of his client.

We hold the term…

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.