Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell
18 Cal. App. 5th 154
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- The Moonlight Fire (Sept. 3, 2007) burned ~65,000 acres; Cal Fire investigated and sued multiple defendants (Howell, employees, Sierra Pacific, Beaty, landowners) seeking fire suppression, investigation costs, and damages under Health & Safety Code §§13009 and 13009.1 and related common-law claims.
- After years of discovery and pretrial motions, the trial court (one week before trial) issued a notice it might conduct a Cottle-type prima facie hearing and, following a multi-day pretrial hearing, dismissed all plaintiffs for failure to present a prima facie case and granted judgment on the pleadings for Sierra Pacific, Beaty, and certain landowners as to Cal Fire's statutory claims.
- After judgment, the trial court awarded defendants costs and massive postjudgment awards (over $28 million) in attorney and expert fees, and imposed terminating and monetary discovery sanctions against Cal Fire for extensive discovery abuses (e.g., late document production, alleged false investigatory report, destroyed investigator notes, false deposition testimony).
- On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal based on the Cottle hearing procedure as a prejudicial due-process defect (inadequate notice of issues), but affirmed the judgment on the pleadings dismissing Cal Fire's claims against Sierra Pacific, Beaty, and landowners because §§13009/13009.1 do not incorporate common-law negligence or vicarious liability concepts.
- The court vacated or remanded many postjudgment awards: costs tied to the defective Cottle dismissal were vacated; costs against Cal Fire where judgment on the pleadings supports them must be apportioned on remand; monetary discovery sanctions were reversed and remanded for recalculation of recoverable expenses; terminating sanctions against Cal Fire were affirmed; attorney-fee awards to defendants as prevailing parties under Civ. Code §1717 and CCP §1021.5 were reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of Cottle prima facie pretrial hearing (due process) | The Cottle hearing was an impermissible shortcut that deprived plaintiffs of meaningful notice and opportunity to present evidence; dismissal violated due process. | The trial court had inherent managerial authority (Cottle) to require prima facie proof in complex litigation and plaintiffs had time/records to present proof. | Reversed: the particular Cottle hearing here was fundamentally unfair (insufficient advance notice of issues), so dismissal based on it was reversed. |
| 2. Whether §§13009 & 13009.1 incorporate common-law negligence and vicarious liability | "Negligently" in the statutes imports common-law negligence doctrines (including vicarious liability); corporations ("person") can be held vicariously liable. | The statutes are limited creations of liability for direct actors; the Legislature omitted earlier "personally or through another" language—so no statutory incorporation of vicarious or other common-law claims. | Affirmed in part: judgment on the pleadings was correct—§§13009/13009.1 do not graft common-law negligence or vicarious liability into statutory cost-recovery claims. |
| 3. Postjudgment costs and prevailing-party attorney fees against Cal Fire | Cal Fire argued award procedures and amounts were tainted by the defective Cottle dismissal and that fees lacked a contractual basis; §1021.5 award was improper because defendants' private burden did not exceed their stake. | Defendants argued they were prevailing parties entitled to costs and fees under statutory provisions and §1717/§1021.5 and that Cal Fire's discovery abuses justified sanctions and fee awards. | Mixed: costs tied to the Cottle dismissal vacated; costs appropriate only as to Sierra Pacific/Beaty/landowners defending Cal Fire (remanded for apportionment). Awards of attorney fees to defendants as prevailing parties were reversed (no contractual basis under §1717; §1021.5 award abused discretion). |
| 4. Discovery sanctions (monetary & terminating) for Cal Fire misconduct | Cal Fire contended sanctions were excessive, procedurally defective, and that terminating sanctions postjudgment were a second judgment beyond the court's jurisdiction. | Defendants asserted pervasive, willful discovery abuses (false reports, false testimony, spoliation, late production) warranted both monetary and terminating sanctions; court has statutory and inherent authority. | Monetary sanctions reversed and remanded for recalculation limited to "reasonable expenses…incurred as a result of" discover misuses (CCP §2023.030). Terminating sanctions affirmed: record supports extreme, pervasive misconduct and trial court acted within discretion and jurisdiction to impose terminating sanctions collateral to the appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cottle v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may fashion Cottle-type prima facie procedure in complex litigation but must respect notice and timing)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 134 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App.) (approved lengthy Cottle-style prima facie hearings where parties had time to prepare)
- Alexander v. Exxon Mobil, 219 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App.) (recognized concerns about detailed affidavits at pleading stage but assumed order valid)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal.) (inherent judicial powers are broad but limited by Constitution and statute)
- Slesinger v. Walt Disney Co., 155 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court may impose terminating sanctions under inherent power for deliberate, egregious misconduct)
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (Cal.) (limits on inherent power and need to avoid conflict with statutory rules)
- Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 (Cal. Ct. App.) (courts wary of using motions in limine as disguised dispositive motions)
- Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, 57 Cal.4th 197 (Cal.) (Mathews balancing test for procedural due process)
- City of Los Angeles v. Shpegel-Dimsey, Inc., 198 Cal.App.3d 1009 (Cal. Ct. App.) (historical note: recovery of government fire costs is statutory, not common law)
- People v. Southern Pacific Co., 139 Cal.App.3d 627 (Cal. Ct. App.) (statutory limits on liability for fire suppression costs under §13009)