Marriage of Dilday CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 12, 2016 No. G051083Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $1,500 in discovery sanctions against the appellant's attorney for filing frivolous motions to compel discovery that were procedurally defective and lacked substantial justification.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding discovery sanctions against the appellant's attorney.
Whether the appellant forfeited the right to challenge the denial of the motion to compel by failing to separately appeal that order.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the lack of substantial justification for the discovery motions were supported by the record.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court ruled this was a “misuse of the discovery process” and, in its discretion, ordered Levinson only to pay sanctions of $1,500.”

““‘Sanction orders are “subject to reversal only for arbitrary, capricious or whimsical action.” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]””

“The court’s ruling here was not a miscarriage of justice.”

Filed 1/12/16 Marriage of Dilday CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of KARYNN D. and ROBERT B. DILDAY.

KARYNN D. PENSANTI, G051083 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 01D008602) v. OPINION ROBERT B. DILDAY,

Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Paula J. Coleman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Gary Paul Levinson for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. * * * This is an appeal from an award of $1500 in discovery sanctions against the attorney for Karynn D. Pensanti (wife) to the attorney for respondent Robert B. Dilday

(husband). Wife’s attorney, Gary Paul Levinson, argues the court abused its discretion in awarding the sanctions. We disagree and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The marriage of husband and wife was dissolved, as best we can determine from the record, in the early 2000’s. The parties have one minor daughter who is now 15 years old (child). Husband has had sole physical custody of the child since 2004, with visitation ordered for wife, who was also ordered to pay child support. In November 2013 wife filed a request for an order to modify child support 1 and visitation. In January 2014 husband filed a request for an order to allow him to 2 move with the child to Arizona and to modify visitation. In addition, husband, in propria 3 persona filed a motion dealing in some fashion with child support. On February 18, 2014 wife served on husband a request for production of documents (Request), containing 12 requests for bank records, tax returns, and a variety of other documents evidencing husband’s financial status, seeking some documents dating back as far as 2011 and 2012. The Request purported to rely on Code of Civil 4 Procedure sections 2030 and 2031. (All further undesignated statutory references are to this code.)

Marriage of Dilday CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THOMPSON, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.

AI Brief