Wednesday, February 22, 2023
Page 1
C.A.: Lawyer May Not Be Sanctioned Under CCP §2025.450 Based on Clients’ Conduct
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Los Angeles Superior Court judge erred in imposing sanctions on an attorney pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450 based on the failure of his clients to show up for depositions, the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Presiding Justice Lee Edmon of Div. Three authored the unpublished opinion. It reverses an order by Judge Mel Red Recana imposing sanctions of $6,577.42 jointly and severally on West Los Angeles attorney Duncan J. McCreary and on his clients in a contract dispute.
Sec. §2025.450(a) provides, in part:
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination...the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony....”
Sanction Provision
Subsection (g)(1) says:
“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction…in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
Edmon wrote:
“Based on the plain language of section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), we agree with McCreary that defendants’ failures to appear at the depositions authorized the trial court to impose monetary sanctions only ‘against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated’…We find nothing in section 2025.450 that authorizes a trial court to impose monetary sanctions against an attorney for a party’s failure to appear at a deposition.
“That omission is telling, because other provisions of the Discovery Act specifically authorize monetary sanctions against an attorney.”
Issue Not Considered
She said in a footnote:
“McCreary further contends that the trial court erred because Castillo failed to produce evidence demonstrating McCreary had any role in defendants’ failures to appear. Because we agree with McCreary that section 2025.450 did not authorize monetary sanctions against him, we do not address this argument.”
The case is Castillo v. McCreary, B317493.
Downey attorney Gavril T. Gabriel represented the plaintiff, Ruth Castillo, and McCreary was in pro per.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company