California Court of Appeal May 13, 2016 No. D068639Unpublished
Filed 5/13/16 Kelly v. Matlock CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PAUL KELLY, D068639
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1310397)
PAUL MATLOCK,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
Pamela P. King, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Matlock, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Plaintiff Paul Kelly sued Little Rock Special Needs Trust (Trust) and its
beneficiary Paul Matlock (Matlock) for damages. Trust and Matlock, after eventually
filing answers to the complaint, responded to Kelly's discovery requests by informing
Kelly's counsel they would not answer the discovery. The court granted Kelly's motion
to compel certain responses, and to deem all requests for admissions admitted.
One year later, after Matlock and Trust did not comply with the previous
discovery order, Kelly moved for terminating sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure1
section 2023.010, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 2030.290 and 2031.320.
authorizes the court to "strik[e] out the pleadings" of any party misusing the discovery
process.
When a court has exercised the option of entering an order granting terminating
sanctions, we apply the "abuse of discretion" as the standard for review (Liberty Mutual
Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101-1102), and
it is the appellant's burden to establish an abuse of discretion. (Kennedy v. Superior
Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359, 366.) Unless the appellant shows a clear case of
abuse and that there has been a miscarriage of justice, we may not substitute our opinion
and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power. (Ibid.) Matlock does not
even mention the sanctions issue in his brief, much less make any effort to examine the
substantive issues of whether the order was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Matlock
has failed to show error in the order and we therefore affirm the judgment.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Kelly is entitled to costs on appeal.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the appellant waived his arguments by failing to comply with the California Rules of Court and failing to demonstrate reversible error regarding the trial court's imposition of terminating sanctions.
Issues
Whether the appellant's failure to comply with the California Rules of Court warrants the waiver of appellate arguments.
Whether the appellant met the burden of demonstrating that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing terminating sanctions for discovery noncompliance.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Matlock's multiple failures and blatant violations of the California Rules of Court impede our review, and justify a finding that he has waived any arguments seeking to overturn the trial court's rulings.”
“Matlock does not even mention the sanctions issue in his brief, much less make any effort to examine the substantive issues of whether the order was an abuse of discretion.”