Legal Opinion

City of El Monte v. Takei

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 12, 1984No. B001215PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MUNOZ, J. *

This is an appeal from the order of the Los Angeles Superior Court imposing sanctions of $750 on each appellant for failing to appear at a mandatory settlement conference as required by the Los Angeles Superior Court Civil Trials Manual, rule 11. We affirm the imposition of sanctions, but reverse for a hearing to determine the proper amount. Appellants, Bruggeman, Smith & Peckham (attorneys), and Mutual Protection Trust Cooperative of American Physicians, Inc. (carrier), are the attorneys and insurance carrier respectively for Dr. Toshihisa Takei who is a cross-defendant in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bauguess v. PaineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Wisniewski v. ClaryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Triplett v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  2. Soliz v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. Shipp v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Ashmus v. CalderonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1998
  5. Sigala v. Anaheim City School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993

2 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