Cantillon v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 16 April 1957
• Citation: 150 Cal.App.2d 184,309 P.2d 890
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: James P. CANTILLON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Civ. 22278.

Page 890

309 P.2d 890

150 Cal.App.2d 184

James P. CANTILLON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent.

Civ. 22278.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

April 16, 1957.

Hearing Denied June 12, 1957.

Cantillon & Cantillon and James P. Cantillon, Beverly Hills, for petitioner.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Wm. E. Lamoreaux, Asst. County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent.

RICHARDS, Justice pro tem.

This petition to review an adjudication of contempt made in connection with a pretrial proceeding before the respondent court challenges the power of that court to make a finding of contempt based on a violation of Rule 8.2, Rules for the Superior Courts.

It is a matter of common knowledge that court congestion in many areas throughout the United States has resulted frequently in a virtual denial of justice and is a matter of grave concern to the bench, the bar, and to the public. It is equally well known that a system of pre-trial conferences as a means of expediting litigation has been effectuated in the federal courts and in many of the state courts and, for several years, has been the subject of study and experimentation in this state.

In 1949, by Assembly Concurrent Resolution 92, Stats.1949 p. 3406, the Legislature requested the Judicial Council to study pre-trial practice and procedure. There followed an extensive study, Judicial Council 15th Biennial Report, pp. 13 et seq., resulting in a recommendation by the Judicial Council to the Legislature that there be adopted an effective pre-trial system in California, through rules to be promulgated by the Judicial Council. Thereafter section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted, Stats.1955 p. 1130, providing that 'The Judicial Council may promulgate rules governing pretrial conferences, and the time, manner and nature thereof, in civil cases at issue, or in one or more classes thereof, in the superior courts and in the municipal courts.' Pursuant to this legislative mandate, the Judicial Council made further study of appropriate rules for pre-trial procedure and submitted tentative rules for consideration and discussion to members of the bar and to the governing officials of the State Bar of California. The necessity for sanctions to insure the effectiveness of pre-trial proceedings was a matter of prime consideration and it was determined by the Judicial Council that unless compliance with such rules by attorneys was made compulsory, the pre-trial system could not attain its desired objectives. On September 19, 1956, '[w]ith full cooperation of the State Bar of California and in direct concert with its Board of Governors', California Manual of Pretrial Procedure, p. 9, rules relating to pre-trial conferences were adopted by the Judicial Council, effective January 1, 1957. Rules 8 to 8.12, Rules for the Superior Courts.

Article VI, sec. 1a, of the California Constitution, creates a Judicial Council and vests in it the power to 'Adopt or amend rules of practice and procedure for the several courts not inconsistent with laws that are now or that may hereafter be in force.' Under this constitutional grant of power, it is well settled that the rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Judicial Council, including such rules as have been adopted under specific statutory mandate, and which do not transcend legislative enactments, have the force of positive law. Helbush v. Helbush, 209 Cal. 758, 290 P. 18; Lane v. Superior Court, 104 Cal.App. 340, 285 P. 860; Isenberg v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.2d 106, 102 P.2d 552; Kuhn v. Ferry and Hensler, 87 Cal.App.2d 812, 197, P.2d 792.

The duties of attorneys in respect to pre-trial conferences are set forth in Rule 8.2 ¹ which requires the attendance at the conference by counsel, if any, who shall have a thorough knowledge of the case and be prepared to discuss it. Manifestly, there can be no pre-trial conference without conferees, and no effective pretrial conference without participation predicated on preparation. This rule of practice and procedure duly adopted by the Judicial Council is not inconsistent with any statutory law and therefore has the force of law as it applies to the duties of attorneys to prepare for, attend, and participate in a pre-trial conference. It is a well-recognized principle that courts have inherent power to enforce the effective conduct of judicial proceedings in order to insure orderly administration of justice, People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 222, 14 P. 849; Hays v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 260, 105 P.2d 975, and the Legislature has codified this principle by granting power to every court to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, Code Civ.Proc., sec. 128, subd. 3. An inexcusable failure to comply with the rules or orders made by a court pertaining to the orderly conduct of judicial proceedings before it constitutes an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the court, Code Civ.Proc., sec. 1209, subd. 8, and by appropriate proceedings is punishable as a contempt of the authority of the court, Lyons v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 755, 278 P.2d 681. A rule of procedure adopted by the Judicial Council within its constitutional or statutory grant of power for the conduct of a judicial proceeding before a court is a rule of the court within the purview of Code Civ.Proc., sec. 128, subd. 3, and we conclude that an inexcusable failure of an attorney to prepare for, appear at, and participate in a pre-trial conference is, by appropriate proceedings, subject to the punitive power of the court.

The contention is here made that Rule 8.9, ² Rules for the Superior Courts, constitutes an attempt by the Judicial Council to legislate in the field of substantive law, in that said rule designates certain acts or omissions as contempts of court, and is therefore an unconstitutional encroachment upon the power of the Legislature. With this contention we cannot agree. Section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except subdivision 8 thereof, defines with some particularity various types of acts or omissions which...