Legal Opinion
Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 24, 1994No. B072128PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MASTERSON, J.
Steven Hartunian and Sumitomo Tower, Ltd. (defendants), attempted to derail a fast track case through evasive answers to discovery. As a sanction for this conduct, the trial court ordered defendants’ answer struck. Defendants appeal from the ensuing default judgment. We affirm the judgment and impose sanctions against defendants and their attorneys for having prosecuted a frivolous appeal.
Background
On October 18, 1991, Collisson & Kaplan (plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants alleging various causes of action for nonpayment of legal fees. On November 18, 1991,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Young v. RosenthalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Midway Orchards v. County of ButteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & BernsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Sauer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Marciano v. Fahs (In Re Marciano)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Pierotti v. TorianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Lang v. HochmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Lorenz v. Commercial Acceptance InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Pollock v. University of Southern CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.