Hearst v. Ferrante

Opinion

GILBERT, J.—

Some attorneys are so addicted to litigation that they will do anything to prolong it. Regrettably, that is why the California Reports contain an ever growing number of cases devoted to sanctions. ■

Here is .yet another contribution to the sanctions proliferation. Where sanctions are awarded pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5,

1

the court must state in writing its reasons for the order.

(Fegles

v.

Kraft

(1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 812, 816-817 [214 Cal.Rptr. 380].) Here we hold that where sanctions are awarded against a party as a condition of relieving him from

[203]

a judgment or order under section 473, the court must also provide that party with a written statement of reasons for the order.

Cross-defendant George R. Hearst, Jr., appeals the $600 attorneys’ fees awarded to cross-complainants George and Kathy Ferrante. We remand to permit the trial court to state reasons justifying the sanctions, or alternatively, to vacate the award. (§ 128.5;

Fegles

v.

Kraft, supra,

168 Cal.App.3d 812, 816-817; §473;

In re Marriage of Flaherty

(1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 [183 Cal.Rptr. 508, 646 P.2d 179].)

Facts

The Ferrantes, sued by Hearst for breach of contract, filed a cross-complaint against Hearst for false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. The Ferrantes’ attorney contended that he personally served this cross-complaint upon Marilyn O’Toole, an attorney representing Hearst. He also served the cross-complaint upon her by mail that same day. O’Toole declared that she did not receive the cross-complaint either by personal service or through the mail. She was aware that the Ferrantes had filed a cross-complaint, however.