Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection v. Howell
C074879A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- The Moonlight Fire (Sept. 3, 2007) burned ~65,000 acres; Cal Fire (plaintiff) investigated and sued Howell (timber operator), Sierra Pacific (timber purchaser), Beaty (land manager), multiple landowners, and Howell employees for suppression/investigation costs and damages.
- Cal Fire’s theory: employees’ bulldozer struck rock, producing hot fragments that ignited brush; failure to timely inspect permitted spread.
- After extensive pretrial proceedings, the trial court (Judge Nichols) held a late Cottle-style prima facie hearing one week before trial, found plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing, dismissed all claims, and granted judgment on the pleadings for Sierra Pacific, Beaty, and landowners as to Cal Fire.
- Postjudgment, the trial court awarded prevailing-party costs and massive attorney/expert-fee and monetary discovery sanctions against Cal Fire (including terminating sanctions), finding pervasive discovery abuses (e.g., late production of WiFITER documents, alleged false investigator report/testimony, spoliation of notes).
- On appeal plaintiffs challenged (1) the Cottle dismissal; (2) the judgment on pleadings as to Cal Fire’s statutory cost-recovery claims; (3) postjudgment costs, fees, and sanctions; and (4) whether remand should be to a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the Cottle prima facie hearing fairly noticed and lawful? | Cal Fire: hearing was procedurally unfair; inadequate notice of issues and no meaningful opportunity to prepare; violated due process. | Defendants: Cottle procedure is a proper case-management tool in complex litigation to narrow issues pretrial. | Reversed as to the Cottle-based dismissals — hearing violated due process because plaintiffs lacked adequate notice and opportunity to cure. |
| 2) Did Health & Safety Code §§ 13009 / 13009.1 incorporate common-law negligence (including vicarious liability) so Cal Fire could pursue common-law claims? | Cal Fire: use of term “negligently” and statutory definition of “person” permits common-law negligence theories and vicarious liability. | Defendants: statutes are limited; recovery is statutory and does not import common-law negligence or vicarious liability beyond the statute’s text. | Affirmed judgment on pleadings as to Cal Fire’s claims against Sierra Pacific, Beaty, and landowners — §§ 13009 and 13009.1 do not incorporate common-law negligence or vicarious liability. |
| 3) Were postjudgment costs and fee/sanctions awards proper? (a) costs to prevailing parties | Plaintiffs: awards flowed from defective Cottle dismissal and lack proper apportionment; Cal Fire disputes some awards. | Defendants: awarded as prevailing parties; seek full costs/fees. | Costs grounded on the Cottle dismissal vacated; costs related to the valid judgment-on-pleadings (Cal Fire vs. certain defendants) remanded for apportionment under CCP §§1032/1033.5. |
| 4) Were discovery sanctions (monetary and terminating) and attorney-fee awards appropriate? | Cal Fire: monetary sanctions excessive and procedurally flawed; terminating sanctions postjudgment exceed court’s authority; fee awards improper (no contractual basis; §1021.5 misuse). | Defendants: discovery abuses warranted fees, expenses, and dismissal; public-benefit fee award justified. | Terminating sanctions vacated only as to extent they hadn’t been effectuated; terminating sanction affirmed (court had jurisdiction and substantial evidence of egregious discovery abuses). Monetary discovery sanctions reversed and remanded to determine reasonable expenses causally tied to the discovery misuse. Attorney-fee awards to defendants as prevailing parties reversed (no contractual basis under Civ. Code §1717; §1021.5 award abused discretion because court did not weigh defendants’ financial stake). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cottle v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may craft Cottle prima facie procedure in complex litigation but timing and notice are crucial)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 134 Cal.App.4th 187 (Cal. Ct. App.) (upholding Cottle-type prima facie showings where ample time was provided)
- Alexander v. Exxon Mobil, 219 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App.) (recognized procedural concerns with early, detailed sworn offers of proof but assumed validity when not challenged)
- Slesinger v. Walt Disney Co., 155 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App.) (courts may use inherent power to impose terminating sanctions for deliberate, egregious misconduct)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (Cal. 1997) (limits on exercise of inherent powers; must be consistent with statutes and constitutional rights)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due-process balancing test applied to determine adequacy of procedural safeguards)