Contemporary Services v. Staff Pro
Filed 3/21/06 Contemporary Services v. Staff Pro CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| CONTEMPORARY SERVICES CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STAFF PRO, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B185119 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC247681) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victor H. Person and Ronald M. Sohigian, Judges, and Eli Chernow, Retired Judge. Affirmed.
Philipson & Simon, Jeffrey S. Simon and David A. Simon; Martin & McCormick and Kathy J. McCormick for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Gibbs, Giden, Locher & Turner, James M. Gansinger and Eric L. Troff for Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
In this case, the trial court adopted a ruling made by a discovery referee that Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) had violated his discovery rulings and was abusing the discovery process in its lawsuit against Staff Pro Security Inc. (Staff Pro). The trial court adopted the referee's recommendations to impose $9,900 monetary sanctions on CSC and its counsel (Philipson & Simon) and to impose various evidentiary sanctions upon CSC.
Initially, appellants' briefs challenged both the monetary and evidentiary sanctions. However, at oral argument, appellants' counsel explicitly abandoned the challenge to the evidentiary sanctions. That concession was well-taken. Review of the order imposing evidentiary sanctions must await an appeal from the final judgment entered in the action. Consequently, the only issue on this appeal is the propriety of the order imposing monetary sanctions. We find no abuse of discretion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
CSC and Staff Pro both provide security and event staffing services to arenas, stadiums, and similar venues in which concerts, athletic events and trade shows are held. In 2001, CSC filed suit against Staff Pro. The operative pleading is the first amended complaint. CSC alleges that Staff Pro has engaged in various unfair business practices that have injured CSC. In particular, CSC claims that Staff Pro charged some of its clients rates that were substantially below Staff Pro's actual cost, thereby precluding CSC from submitting competitive bids. CSC further claims that Staff Pro made up for any financial shortfalls by billing those clients for services that were never rendered (â€
