Diepenbrock

Diepenbrock v. Brown

Good Law
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 896·208 Cal. App. 4th 743
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2012No. A132749California2,072 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pollak, J.

Plaintiff Claire Louise Diepenbrock and her attorney William L. Veen and the Veen Law Firm, P.C. (collectively Veen), appeal a judgment imposing $5,000 in sanctions against Diepenbrock and Veen for opposing a motion for a protective order by Derek Brown, a deponent in Diepenbrock’s personal injury action against Derek Brown’s wife, Kyle Brown. 1 We conclude that although plaintiff’s position was rejected on the merits, there was substantial justification for the opposition and therefore that the sanctions were wrongly imposed.

Background

Diepenbrock, represented by Veen, brought this negligence action against Kyle and others for serious personal injuries she suffered when struck on her bicycle by a car driven by Kyle. After Kyle pleaded guilty in separate criminal proceedings to the felony of driving under the influence of a prescription medication, thus causing Diepenbrock’s injuries, Diepenbrock was permitted to amend her complaint to add a claim for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4 (actions arising from the commission of a felony), and the court granted her motion permitting financial discovery upon a showing that there was a substantial…

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.