Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2009)

Our plain-English summary of Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, February 11, 2009).

Wayne S. Handley and other petitioners sued over asbestos harm in Los Angeles County. Handley has malignant pleural mesothelioma, described as terminal. Leslie Controls, Inc. moved for summary adjudication of several causes of action, including on a "sophisticated user" argument about asbestos products. The trial court granted the motion as to Handley after declining to consider the part of his opposition brief that went over the 20-page limit. The excess consisted of a title page, a short introduction, a summary and a two-line conclusion. Handley petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate. The court found the trial court abused its discretion. It called the ruling a harsh penalty for a minor rules violation and noted that the sophisticated user argument was actually discussed within the page limit. It also noted the trial court had denied a similar motion against other parties. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its order, reconsider the motion including the sophisticated user argument, and rule on the merits. Because of Handley's health, the decision was made final immediately.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division
• Decided: February 11, 2009
• Stage: Appeal from summary judgment
• Unpublished opinion. Many courts limit citing unpublished opinions as precedent.
• State: California

Outcome. The Court of Appeal granted Handley's writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its summary adjudication order against Handley, reconsider the motion including his "sophisticated user" argument, and rule on its merits; Leslie Controls lost the ruling.

What the court held. A trial court abuses its discretion by granting summary adjudication as a sanction for a minor violation of the 20-page limit on opposition briefs without considering the merits of the arguments raised, given the policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery, Sophisticated User and Intermediary Defenses.

The people and their exposure

• Wayne S. Handley: pleural mesothelioma

The defendants

• Leslie Controls, Inc. (manufacturer) · its asbestos trust

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (April 1, 2009). The Court of Appeal granted plaintiff Wayne Handley's petition for writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to set a trial date within 15 days of finality, rejecting the July 21, 2009 date sought by the defendants (Buffalo Pumps and others).

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

WAYNE S. HANDLEY et al., Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

LESLIE CONTROLS, INC., Real Party in Interest.

B213626.

February 11, 2009

Not to be Published in the Official Reports

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Three

Waters & Kraus, Paul C. Cook and Michael B. Gurien for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Gordon & Rees, Michael Pietrykowski, Don Willenburg and Gary A. Collis for Real Party in Interest.

KLEIN, P. J.

On January 29, 2009, we notified the parties and the trial court we were considering issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance and on an expedited basis. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171.) We further notified the parties and the trial court the only issue being considered by this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider opposition documents filed by petitioner Wayne S. Handley.[1]

Having reviewed the record and the briefing received in response to the notice we were considering issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance, we conclude the trial court's order granting summary adjudication without consideration of issues raised in the opposition to the motion for summary adjudication is an abuse of discretion.

The granting of summary adjudication on three of the causes of action is a draconian penalty for a minor violation of court rules,[2] resulting in a potentially unjust result. The document at issue consists of 23 pages which include: (1) page 1, the title page; (2) page 2 which contains a portion of an introductory statement consisting of six lines and counsel's signature, (3) page 22, a summary of the arguments, and (4) page 23 which consists of a two-line conclusion and counsel's signature. If sanctions are warranted for such a minor departure from a court rule, there are numerous lesser sanctions that would be more in keeping with the circumstances than the granting of summary adjudication that deprives the petitioner of three of the causes of action in the litigation.

The summary adjudication involves the "sophisticated user" of asbestos products contention. The transcript of the hearing indicates the trial court denied summary adjudication of a substantially identical argument by other parties. When questioned by counsel for petitioner, the court replied "The argument was probably found in the portion of your brief that was stricken."

In fact, the issue was discussed on pages 14 through 20 of the opposition to the motion for summary adjudication and carries-over only 10 lines to the pages in excess of the 20-page limit. This indicates a possible misunderstanding of the length of the opposition brief and results in an apparent inconsistent ruling and unequal treatment before the court. If, as stated by counsel for petitioner, the trial court granted the summary adjudication motion based solely or in part on a minor violation of a court rule involving length of briefs, the result is a subversion of the policy favoring resolution of lawsuits on the merits.

Having reviewed the petition, the exhibits provided, and the opposition and reply briefs following our notice we were considering issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance, we conclude petitioner's "`"entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue. . . ." [Citation.]'" (Lewis v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1241.) Accordingly, the petition is granted.

DISPOSIITON

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the respondent court to: (1) vacate its order insofar as that order granted the motion for summary adjudication as to petitioner Handley; (2) reconsider the motion for summary adjudication including the portion of the brief filed by counsel for Handley which sets forth the "sophisticated user" of asbestos products contention; and (3) enter an order on the merits of the "sophisticated user" argument as applied to petitioner Handley. In view of the exigent circumstances of this case and the precarious nature of petitioners' health, we conclude immediate finality of this decision is necessary to prevent frustration of the relief granted and to promote the interests of justice. Accordingly, the decision is final as to this court when filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(3).) The stay issued by this court on January 29, 2009 is lifted.

No costs are awarded in this proceeding.

We concur:

CROSKEY, J.

KITCHING, J.

[1] Petitioner suffers from malignant pleural mesothelioma, a terminal disease, and is gravely ill.

[2] Rule 3.1113(d) of the California Rules of Court limits the responding memorandum to 20 pages and gives the court discretion to decline to consider documents exceeding the 20-page limit.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• California asbestos laws
• California asbestos exposure sites