Frontline Medical Associates v. Bird, Marella, Boxer, etc. CA2/1, B336038

Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. sued Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C., and Benjamin Gluck, alleging misrepresentations and breach of fiduciary duty tied to $2.25 million in legal fees.
The case involved extensive, prolonged, and contentious discovery disputes, with Frontline repeatedly failing to comply with discovery orders and deadlines.
Frontline’s former counsel, David Browne, claimed a non-waivable conflict of interest and withdrew, but continued to assist Frontline and interact with key witnesses post-withdrawal.
Multiple contradictory representations were made regarding Frontline's ownership and the role and ability of its alleged principal, Munir Uwaydah, to participate in the litigation.
The trial court imposed escalating sanctions for discovery abuses, ultimately granting terminating sanctions and dismissing Frontline’s case with prejudice, after finding egregious and willful misconduct.
The Court of Appeal was asked to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in issuing terminating sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was terminating sanction for Frontline’s misconduct warranted?	Browne’s conflict and actions post-withdrawal were justified to avoid prejudice; discovery errors not willful; missteps excusable.	Frontline engaged in willful discovery abuse, repeated violations, and misrepresentations amounting to fraud on the court.	Affirmed: Substantial evidence of egregious and willful misconduct justified dismissal.
Should Browne’s actions post-withdrawal be imputed to Frontline?	Browne acted independently; his conduct should not be held against Frontline.	Frontline condoned and benefited from Browne’s conduct; acts properly attributable to client.	Actions attributed to Frontline; exception for attorney “positive misconduct” not applicable.
Did Frontline misrepresent its ownership to the court?	Any shift in statements reflects legitimate ownership change, not misconduct.	Frontline misled court about ownership, transferring interest to avoid negative litigation consequences.	Substantial evidence supported finding of material misrepresentation to the court.
Did discovery abuses reach the threshold for terminating sanctions?	Delays and noncompliance were not willful, but the result of challenges locating documents and witnesses overseas.	Pattern of repeated, unjustified, and disruptive violations, even in face of lesser sanctions.	Concluded escalation to terminating sanction was proper due to persistent, willful noncompliance.

Osborne v. Todd Farm Service, 247 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (affirming terminating sanctions for pervasive litigation misconduct)
Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem, 128 Cal.App.4th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (history of willful discovery abuse can justify ultimate sanction of dismissal)
Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 32 Cal.3d 892 (Cal. 1982) (attorney’s neglect imputed to client except in cases of positive misconduct where client not negligent)