Green v. Home Depot

Filed 5/9/06 Green v. Home Depot CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard W. Green, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Gibbs & Fuerst, Michael T. Gibbs, and Kevin L. Borgen, for Defendant and Respondent.

1. Introduction

Plaintiff and appellant Richard W. Green, proceeding in propria persona, filed a personal injury action against defendant and respondent Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Home Depot). The trial court imposed a terminating sanction for discovery violations and dismissed plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his original form complaint in propria persona on December 16, 2002. The complaint alleged personal injury, premises liability and bad faith against Home Depot. The original complaint does not describe the alleged injury. Apparently, however, plaintiff was in a Home Depot store on December 30, 2001. He attempted to remove a roll of roofing material from a shelf. He slipped on some granules on the floor, lost his balance and fell backward. Evidently, he was struck by the roll of roofing material. He reported the incident to Home Depot the next day. He stated that his low back was bothering him and that he had cracked his upper denture in the fall. He did not report the incident at the time because he was disoriented.

On March 12, 2003, plaintiff substituted in retained counsel, John D. Gallegos. By July 15, 2003, however, attorney Gallegos moved to withdraw as counsel, on the ground of a conflict between counsel and client. Plaintiff had been advised to obtain new counsel, but had not done so; hence, neither plaintiff's consent nor the consent of new counsel could be obtained. Plaintiff opposed the motion for withdrawal, alleging that attorney Gallegos had conspired with Home Depot's counsel to manipulate the court to plaintiff's disadvantage. At the hearing on August 25, 2003, the court granted attorney Gallegos's motion to withdraw.

After the action was filed, Home Depot attempted several times to take plaintiff's deposition. Plaintiff's deposition was originally noticed for May 14, 2003. The record contains an â€