Bacon v. Renard

Filed 4/6/06 Bacon v. Renard CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jon M. Mayeda, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

The Davis Maltin Law Firm; Silver & Freedman and Phillip R. Maltin; Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Polly Towill and Karin Dougan Vogel for Defendant and Appellant.

Bleau, Fox & Fong and Thomas P. Bleau for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

* * * * * *

Appellant was ordered to appear at his deposition, did appear but ultimately did not testify after his attorney got into a heated argument with opposing counsel and the deposition was suspended. As a sanction, the trial court struck appellant's answer, entered his default and awarded judgment in the amount of $1.3 million, of which punitive damages comprised $1.1 million. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the ultimate discovery sanction for his violation of a single discovery order. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree and reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Allegations in the Complaint

According to the complaint filed in June 2002 by plaintiffs and respondents Michael Bacon, Andrew Hopkins and Five Point Financial, LLC (Five Point), defendant Mario Oliver solicited respondents during the summer of 1999 to invest in his new restaurant, Linq Restaurant, LLC (Linq). The complaint alleges that Oliver's codefendant, appellant Jerome Renard, who was Linq's controller, prepared projections indicating that respondents' investments would be â€