Opinion
B163713.
11-19-2003
DOROTHY NACHMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MODERN ELEVATOR, INC., Defendant and Appellant.
Hyland & Associates, Charles J. Hyland and Brandon Q. Tran, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Modern Elevator, Inc. appeals from the trial courts order directing payment of monetary sanctions, contending the order violates its due process rights. We agree and reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Dorothy Nachman filed an action seeking damages from Wilshire Capital, Jade Enterprises and Modern Elevator for injuries she had allegedly suffered when an elevator door closed on her. After an unsuccessful court-ordered mediation, the trial court held a status conference and set a mandatory settlement conference for the following day. The court ordered that "the [insurance] adjustors [for the defendants] or persons with settlement authority appear [at the conference]."
Notwithstanding the courts order requiring personal attendance at the mandatory settlement conference, the adjuster from Modern Elevators insurance carrier did not appear at the conference. Modern Elevators counsel had not informed the trial court the adjuster would be unable to attend. According to the court, the adjuster had "refused to come."
The trial court imposed $1,000 in sanctions against Modern Elevator. The court also invited Nachman to file a declaration specifying the attorney fees and costs she had incurred in connection with the "wasted appearance" and stated it would hold Modern Elevator responsible for those amounts as well. The court continued the settlement conference to November 15, 2002.
The trial court did not impose sanctions against Modern Elevators counsel because it found no willful misconduct on his part.
At the November 15 conference the case settled. On the record the trial court revisited the issue of the adjusters failure to appear at the earlier conference. On its own motion the court found the adjusters failure to appear resulted from a "misunderstanding" and vacated the $1,000 sanctions award. The court, however, found good cause to require Modern Elevator to compensate Nachman for $715 in attorney fees and costs she had incurred as a result of her counsels appearance. This appeal followed.
The trial court also ordered Modern Elevator to pay $630.75 in sanctions to Wilshire Capital for the attorney fees and costs it had incurred as a result of its counsels appearance on October 25. While this appeal was pending, Modern Elevator and Wilshire Capital settled the cross-actions between them, including any issues with respect to the sanctions award. Modern Elevators appeal was dismissed as to Wilshire Capital.
A judgment of dismissal was entered in this action on February 7, 2003. Modern Elevator filed a notice of appeal from the sanctions order of November 15, 2002 on December 12, 2002, before the trial court had signed and entered the judgment. Because a sanctions award of less than $5,000 may be reviewed only on an appeal from the final judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subds. (a)(12) & (b)), Modern Elevators notice of appeal was premature. We treat Modern Elevators notice of appeal as an appeal from the February 7 judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(d).)
CONTENTIONS
Modern Elevator contends the order directing it to pay $715 to cover Nachmans attorney fees and costs for her counsels appearance on October 25, 2002 must be reversed because the trial court failed to specify any statutory authority for the sanctions award or to identify the conduct justifying the imposition of sanctions.
Because Nachman did not file a respondents brief, we decide this appeal based on the record, the opening brief and any oral argument by appellant Modern Elevator. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 17(a)(2).)
DISCUSSION
The Trial Courts Failure to Specify the Statutory Authority and the Conduct on Which the Sanctions Are Based Constitutes a Denial of Due Process
To satisfy due process requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard, a trial court imposing sanctions must identify the statute or rule authorizing the sanctions and detail the circumstances warranting the punishment. (First City Properties, Inc. v. MacAdam (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 507, 514, 516 [trial court must specify statutory basis upon which it relies to impose sanctions and give the party aggrieved notice of the acts for which it was sanctioned]; Caldwell v. Samuels Jewelers (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 970, 978 ["due process requires that any order giving rise to the imposition of sanctions state with particularity the basis for finding a violation of the rule"].) Identification of the statutory basis for an order directing payment of a monetary sanction is particularly important because the trial court lacks the inherent power to impose such a sanctions award. (People v. Muhammad (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 313, 315.)
The failure to specify the authority and grounds for a sanctions award also prevents an appellate court from conducting a meaningful review of the trial courts exercise of its discretion in imposing sanctions. (First City Properties, Inc. v. MacAdam, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 516 ["when an appeal is processed on a standard of abuse of discretion, the party aggrieved must be put on notice of the acts for which it was sanctioned in order to mount an effective review. Failure to delineate the grounds for exercise of discretion precludes meaningful review, a denial of due process"]; Caldwell v. Samuels Jewelers, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 978 [requirement that trial court specify circumstances in justification enables reviewing court to determine whether trial court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions].)
The trial court here failed to specify both the authority and grounds for imposing the $715 sanctions award against Modern Elevator. Neither on the record nor in its minute orders did the trial court identify the statutory basis for the sanctions award; and the record on appeal contains no separate written order identifying any authority for the award against Modern Elevator. Furthermore, after finding the adjusters failure to appear was the result of a "misunderstanding" and vacating the $1,000 sanctions award, the trial court provided no grounds for requiring Modern Elevator to compensate Nachman for the attorney fees and costs she incurred through her counsels appearance. The trial courts conclusory statement of "good cause" is insufficient to justify the imposition of sanctions. (Caldwell v. Samuels Jewelers , supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 978 ["good cause appearing" is insufficient to satisfy the specificity requirements of due process]; OBrien v. Cseh (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 957, 962 [same].) Accordingly, the sanctions imposed against Modern Elevator must be reversed. (First City Properties, Inc. v. MacAdam , supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 517 ["where it is unclear what statute the court used as authority for its issuance of sanctions, the reporters transcript and minute order do not enlighten us as to the precise reasons for the order, [fn. omitted] and the order prepared by counsel for [the party in whose favor sanctions were imposed] fails to set forth the statutes and reasons, due process has not been complied with"].)
Because we find the sanctions order is deficient on the ground the trial court failed to specify the statutory basis and reasons justifying the award, we need not address Modern Elevators additional contention the trial court violated its due process rights by not providing adequate notice of its intent to impose sanctions and giving it an opportunity to be heard before determining a sanctions award against it was warranted.
DISPOSITION
That portion of the judgment imposing $715 in sanctions against Modern Elevator is reversed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
We concur: JOHNSON, J., WOODS, J.