Uwadiale v. Makiyama CA1/5

Filed 9/2/15 Uwadiale v. Makiyama CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

GRACE UWADIALE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, A143567

v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC0903497) TODD MAKIYAMA,

Defendant and Respondent. _____________________________________/

The trial court sanctioned plaintiff Grace Uwadiale’s former attorney, Alfred O. Anyia, $6,178.26 for not attending a pretrial issue conference and failing to file pretrial documents in violation of Contra Costa Superior Court Local Rules (former local rule 5). Anyia appeals. He contends Code of Civil Procedure section 575.2 does not authorize the imposition of monetary sanctions, he was denied due process, and the amount awarded was excessive.1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We incorporate the factual and procedural history from our opinion in plaintiff’s prior appeal (Uwadiale v. Makiyama (Mar. 24, 2014, A137521) [nonpub. opn.]), and provide only a brief overview here. 1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is not a party to this appeal and is mentioned only where necessary. 1

The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s dental malpractice action against Dr. Todd Makiyama, DDS because plaintiff and her then attorney, Anyia, did not attend the pretrial issue conference and failed to file pretrial documents in violation of former local rule 5.2 The court later denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal pursuant to section 473, subdivision (b). Plaintiff appealed and we reversed. We concluded, among other things, the court erred by dismissing the action because there was no evidence less severe sanctions would be ineffective. We directed the court to vacate the orders and to consider whether to hold a hearing on the possible imposition of sanctions, other than terminating sanctions, for plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to comply with local rules. (Uwadiale v. Makiyama, supra, A137521.) Following remittitur, Dr. Makiyama moved for $6,178.26 in sanctions against Anyia pursuant to section 575.2 and former local rule 25. According to Dr. Makiyama, Anyia violated former local rule 5 by failing to file mandatory pretrial documents and attend the issue conference. Dr. Makiyama supported the motion with attorney declarations detailing the time spent preparing for and attending the issue conference and moving for sanctions. In opposition, Anyia admitted he did not comply with former local rule 5 and that section 575.2 authorized the imposition of monetary sanctions. He argued, however, that the amount of sanctions requested was excessive because it was “unreasonable” for two attorneys to attend the issue conference and because defense counsel spent too long traveling to and from the conference. Following a hearing, the court partially granted Dr. Makiyama’s motion and sanctioned Anyia $6,178.26. The court determined “Anyia was responsible for the local rules violation. He failed to file and serve mandatory pre-trial documents and failed to