K.J. v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., No. S241057 (Cal. Jan. 30, 2020)
An Attorney who represents a Kid suing LAUSD got held in contempt by the trial court for obstructing a court-ordered psychiatric exam of his client. The contempt citation was $750 and a day in jail. Attorney took a writ on the ruling. But while that was pending, the trial court then tacked on $16,111 of the LAUSD’s fees as a discovery sanction, payable by Attorney alone. The Court of Appeal granted a writ on the contempt, after which the trial court vacated that order. But it let the discovery sanction stand.
A sanction award over $5,000 is an appealable order under Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1(a)(11). Attorney’s attorney filed a notice of appeal. But the notice identified the applellant as the Kid, not the Attorney. LAUSD moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Kid had no standing because only Attorney got sanctioned. Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted review.
The timing of a notice of appeal is a strict requirement. Just one day late, you still lose. But the contents of a notice of appeal are liberally construed. The Court of Appeal thought the rule was not so liberal as to permit reading in a different, unnamed appellant.
But the Supreme Court disagrees. The notice expressly identified the sanctions order, which everyone could tell imposed sanctions on Attorney, not Kid. The trial court arguments focused on the court’s authority to sanction attorney, not kid. And LAUSD didn’t argue it was somehow confused or mislead by the identification of the wrong appellant. Under the circumstances, it is permissible to read the notice as making an appeal on Attorney’s belhalf.
Court of Appeal reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment