Legal Opinion

Sole Energy Co. v. Hodges

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 5, 2005No. G031282PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FYBEL, J.

Introduction

The trial court entered the defaults of four defendants as a sanction for their discovery abuses. Default judgment was entered against them in an amount exceeding $27 million, and the defendants appealed.

*202We reverse the judgment because the defendants did not receive notice their defaults might be entered as a discovery sanction and were not provided an opportunity to be heard on the matter. The defendants were denied due process because sanctions for the abuse or misuse of discovery may not be awarded ex parte. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023, subd. (b).) The notice of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  2. Cole v. Roebling Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. In Re Marriage of LippelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Heidary v. YadollahiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. O'BRIEN v. CsehCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Electronic Funds Solutions v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  4. Lee v. AnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API