Hawkins v. Pacific Coast Building Products
Filed 5/18/06 Hawkins v. Pacific Coast Building Products CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
LEROY HAWKINS, JR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC COAST BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Respondent. | C050202 (Super. Ct. No. CV019138) |
The trial court dismissed plaintiff Leroy Hawkins, Jr.'s, amended complaint as a discovery sanction for misuse of the discovery process. Hawkins, who appeared in propria persona throughout the proceedings, appeals the judgment. He argues the trial court clerk erred by permitting defendant Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc., (Pacific Coast) to file an answer. He also argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for entry of default and by ordering him to attend a deposition. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hawkins filed his original complaint on November 13, 2002, naming Basalite Corporation as the sole defendant. He filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2003, naming Pacific Coast. Pacific Coast demurred to the amended complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, this court reversed, in part, and remanded Hawkins's causes of action alleging race discrimination and harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.[1] (Hawkins v. Pacific Coast Bldg. Products, Inc. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505.) The clerk of this court issued the remittitur on February 16, 2005, and the trial court clerk acknowledged receipt on February 18.
On February 14, 2005, four days prior to the trial court's receipt of the remittitur, Pacific Coast filed an answer to the amended complaint. Hawkins filed a request for entry of default on February 22. The trial court clerk did not enter a default against Pacific Coast because its answer was already on file.
The parties agreed Pacific Coast would take Hawkins's deposition on February 24, and Pacific Coast served Hawkins a notice of taking deposition and a request for production of documents. On February 11, Hawkins told Pacific Coast's attorney he did not want to attend a deposition, explaining he wanted to go to trial without giving one. He also said he would call Pacific Coast's attorney again if he was not going to attend the deposition. Hawkins did not attend the February 24 deposition nor produce the requested documents. He did not call Pacific Coast's attorney again in advance of the February 24 date nor serve a written objection to the notice of deposition.
Pacific Coast's attorney phoned Hawkins to ask him about his failure to appear at the deposition and Hawkins repeated he wanted to proceed directly to trial without his deposition taken. Pacific Coast's attorney warned Hawkins that if he refused to attend his deposition, Pacific Coast would file a motion to compel his attendance, which could result in sanctions against Hawkins.
On March 11, Pacific Coast filed a motion to compel Hawkins's attendance at the deposition and for sanctions. Then on March 15, Hawkins filed a motion to enter default.
On April 12 the trial court granted the motion to compel and ordered Hawkins to attend a deposition on April 20. At that time, the court reserved ruling on Hawkins's motion to enter default until April 22.
Hawkins did not attend the April 20 deposition. He told Pacific Coast's attorney he would not attend any depositions and that he had decided to â€
