45 Cal.App.5th 348
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Luke Edward Dumas sued Los Angeles County, the LA County Sheriff, and others over his 2015 arrest, alleging physical and emotional injuries and seeking punitive damages.
- The County demurred and moved to strike the punitive damages demand; the court sustained the demurrer in part (dismissed one cause and the Sheriff) and struck punitive damages as unavailable against public entities.
- During discovery the County subpoenaed Dumas’s medical records and noticed his deposition; Dumas moved to quash the subpoena and failed to attend multiple depositions.
- On January 23, 2018 Dumas filed a verified statement of disqualification under Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3; the judge struck it as untimely and legally insufficient.
- After Dumas again failed to appear for deposition and did not respond to an order to show cause, the trial court dismissed his complaint for discovery noncompliance; Dumas timely appealed, raising several procedural and evidentiary challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dumas) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dumas received notice of the judge’s order striking his § 170.3 statement and thus could seek writ review | Dumas says he never received notice and was thereby prevented from filing a writ of mandate | County points to the record showing post-strike activity (OSC) and that Dumas knew or should have known of the ruling | Court held record rebutted Dumas’s nonreceipt claim; even if struck improperly, that ruling is reviewable only by writ and Dumas did not seek it, so issue not reviewable on appeal |
| Whether the County failed to satisfy the meet-and-confer requirement before filing its demurrer, making the demurrer improper | Dumas contends the County’s written request did not meet the statute’s in-person/telephone meet-and-confer requirement and that failure invalidates the demurrer | County relied on its declaration of a written meet-and-confer attempt and argued any defect does not undermine the demurrer | Court held § 430.41 bars overruling/sustaining a demurrer solely because the meet-and-confer was insufficient; any deficiency would not invalidate the demurrer, so sustaining in part was proper |
| Whether the court erred by granting the motion to strike punitive damages without considering Dumas’s opposition | Dumas says the court mistakenly noted he filed no opposition and therefore did not consider his arguments | County argued punitive damages are unavailable against public entities regardless of any opposition | Court held any clerical oversight caused no prejudice because the motion was granted on the separate, uncontested legal ground that public entities cannot be liable for punitive damages |
| Whether the court erred in denying Dumas’s motion to quash the medical-records subpoena | Dumas argued the subpoena invaded privacy and was overbroad because he did not assert disability-discrimination claims | County argued Dumas placed his physical and emotional injuries at issue, making medical records relevant | Court declined to reach the merits because dismissal for discovery noncompliance rendered these issues immaterial; alternatively, it found medical records relevant given Dumas’s injury claims |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lind, 230 Cal.App.4th 709 (procedural effect of a § 170.3 filing suspending judge’s power)
- Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc., 234 Cal.App.3d 415 (trial judge may strike untimely or facially deficient § 170.3 statements)
- Hollingsworth v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.3d 22 (failure of judge to act within 10 days is deemed consent to disqualification)
- PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd., 112 Cal.App.4th 965 (striking a § 170.3 statement is not reviewable on appeal)
- Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist., 33 Cal.App.5th 502 (§ 430.41’s meet-and-confer rules do not make a demurrer void)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (trial courts retain inherent authority to manage proceedings and confer to narrow issues)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (standard for abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend)