Dresser v. Hiramanek CA3
C082948
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Roda filed a 15‑cause complaint in 2013 against her former attorney William Dresser arising from his representation; William answered and filed a cross‑complaint.
- William twice moved to compel discovery and noticed Roda's deposition; the court ordered Roda to submit to deposition but she failed to appear.
- William moved for terminating sanctions; the trial court held a hearing, found Roda willfully disobeyed discovery orders, granted terminating sanctions, struck Roda’s operative pleading(s), and entered default.
- After prove‑up hearings, the court entered default judgment on William’s cross‑complaint and awarded $177,838.66 in compensatory damages.
- Roda appealed and raised numerous procedural, jurisdictional, ADA/accommodation, and bias arguments; the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roda) | Defendant's Argument (Dresser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether terminating sanctions were an abuse of discretion | Sanctions improper because deposition notices were defective, she was willing to be deposed with accommodations, and she lacked adequate opportunity to be heard | Roda repeatedly refused court‑ordered depositions despite notice; trial court credited Dresser’s declarations and prior orders | No abuse of discretion; sanctions upheld based on willful discovery disobedience and totality of circumstances |
| Whether denial of remote deposition/accommodation under ADA was reversible | Roda sought telephone/remote deposition as a reasonable accommodation and contends it was denied | Dresser says accommodation review was available by writ and none was granted; discovery deposition is not a court proceeding for ADA coordinator to mandate remote deposition | Court rejects claim: Roda failed to seek writ review of ADA denial and thus cannot raise it on appeal |
| Whether the court struck the wrong pleading (complaint v. first amended complaint) | Trial court struck original complaint instead of operative first amended complaint, rendering order invalid | Trial court’s order effectively struck the operative pleading (first amended complaint) | Not reversible error; the order’s effect was to strike the operative complaint |
| Whether motion for relief from default was mischaracterized as reconsideration | Roda contends her motion to set aside default was treated improperly as a motion for reconsideration | Trial court correctly viewed the motion as challenging the sanctions that produced the default | Affirmed: trial court properly denied relief given terminating sanctions and failure to show cause |
| Validity of prove‑up and amount awarded ($177,838.66) | Roda asserts inadequate notice of damages, insufficiency of evidence, statute‑of‑limitations and other defenses | Dresser’s cross‑complaint sought that amount; documentary and testimonial evidence were presented at prove‑up; default admits allegations | Judgment sustained: damages were sought in cross‑complaint, evidence was presented, plaintiff forfeited affirmative defenses by default |
| Consolidation/subpoena/delay/bias claims | Roda argues denial of consolidation, quashed subpoena, litigation delay, and judicial bias prejudiced her | Dresser and court note lack of demonstrated prejudice, procedural default, or record support for bias | Court finds no prejudice and no record of bias; these contentions fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 967 (recognizes discovery misuse sanctions including terminating sanctions)
- Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns, 7 Cal.App.4th 27 (trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions)
- Lang v. Hochman, 77 Cal.App.4th 1225 (terminating sanctions evaluated under totality of circumstances: willfulness, prejudice, and efforts to obtain discovery)
- Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges, 128 Cal.App.4th 199 (reversal where terminating sanctions imposed without notice or opportunity to be heard)
- Brown v. American Bicycle Group, LLC, 224 Cal.App.4th 665 (ADA accommodation denials in court process reviewable by writ of mandate)
- In re Marriage of Lippel, 51 Cal.3d 1160 (default judgments limited to relief demanded in complaint or required statement)
- Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 126 Cal.App.4th 1294 (sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal from default judgment when defendant defaulted)
- Minton v. Cavaney, 56 Cal.2d 576 (affirmative defenses may be forfeited by conduct leading to default)