Legal Opinion
Lindsey v. Conteh
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 23, 2017No. G052016PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOORE, Acting P. J.
—Characterized by the trial court as litigation in which ‘“[m]oney does not appear to be an object to the parties and counsel,” this case calls on us to consider the propriety of a discovery referee’s order imposing $100,000 in discovery sanctions against defendants Alieu B. M. Conteh (Conteh), Odessa Capital Inc., Dominique Financial, Ltd., OOA ONE, LLC, and OOA TWO, LLC (collectively, defendants), for failure to comply with a prior discovery order. Defendants contend the referee, stipulated to by the parties to rule on all discovery-related matters, erred in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Holt v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern National InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Hihn v. PeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Aetna Life Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Jovine v. FHP, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Fierro v. Landry's Rest. Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Fierro v. Landry's Rest. Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Fierro v. Landry's Restaurant Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2018
- Fierro v. Landry's Restaurant, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.