Ratliff

Ratliff v. Corodata Corporation CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 19, 2024A162964California2,531 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

In June 2018, Ratliff filed a complaint alleging he was injured in a traffic accident with a vehicle owned by Corodata. Thereafter, Ratliff’s

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.

1 counsel missed four case management conferences; the trial court ordered Ratliff’s counsel to pay a total of $150 in monetary sanctions.2 In July 2019, Corodata served Ratliff with form interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Ratliff did not respond, and his counsel failed to appear at a subsequent case management conference, prompting the trial court to issue an order to show cause why sanctions— including dismissal—should not be imposed. Ratliff’s counsel appeared at the next case management conference, where the court imposed a $50 monetary sanction for counsel’s failure to appear at the prior conference. In January 2020, the trial court granted Corodata’s unopposed motion to compel discovery responses, ordered Ratliff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and imposed a $660 monetary sanction. Ratliff failed to comply with the order. Nine months later, Corodata moved for…

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.