AGNETA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Filed 6/27/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| AGNETA KARLSSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. | B173022 (Los Angeles County Super. Court Nos. PC019980 & PC021038) |
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Howard J. Schwab, Judge. Affirmed.
Story continue from Part I ………
Based on the entirety of his findings, the referee recommended the eight original sanctions. Nowhere did his fifth report differentiate between the several grounds raised by TCT or otherwise indicate that sanctions 1, 2, and 3 were based solely on the failure to designate a proper warnings PMK. At the hearing where the trial court considered Ford's objections to the referee's report and adopted the referee's findings, the court rejected Ford's contention that sanctions were improper because Ford had not violated a discovery order. Expressly citing to Do It Urself, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th 27, the court found that the meet and confer violation over the warnings PMK was â€
