Plateau Used Car Sales v. Robertson, No. 31882-2-II (WA 12/13/2005)
| Decision Date | 13 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 31882-2-II.,31882-2-II. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | PLATEAU USED CAR SALES, a sole proprietorship; B & B AUTO, a sole proprietorship, and DELBERT BRADLEY, an individual, Appellants, v. MICK ROBERTSON, an individual, and `JANE DOE' ROBERTSON, husband and wife and their marital community, Respondents, and JANE DOE BRADLEY, and the marital community composed thereof, Defendant. |
Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County. Docket No: 03-2-05037-2. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 06/04/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Vicki Hogan.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Carlos Manuel III Sosa, Attorney at Law, 29 1st St NE, Auburn, WA 98002-4938.
Counsel for Respondent(s), John Daniel Groseclose, Henderson Jones & Short, 1155 Bethel Ave, Port Orchard, WA 98366-3125.
Delbert Bradley sued Mick Robertson, his partner at Plateau Used Car Sales, for alleged violations of the partnership agreement. When Bradley failed to comply with the case schedule and various discovery orders, the trial court (1) dismissed his complaint; (2) entered a default judgment on Robertson's counterclaim; and (3) excluded some of Bradley's proffered evidence at trial. Bradley appeals, arguing that the trial court's sanctions were too severe, that he was denied civil due process, and that the trial judge should have recused herself. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanctions, we affirm.
In 2001, Bradley and Robertson agreed to start a used car business together. Under their agreement, Bradley sold Robertson 50 percent of Plateau Used Car Sales for $20,000. Robertson also contributed $20,000 in inventory. The two agreed that Bradley would fix up used vehicles and ready them for resale, and Robertson would focus on sales. They agreed to divide the profits equally.
After approximately a year-and-a-half, Bradley and Robertson started having disputes about Robertson's alleged tardiness, business practices, and drinking habits. They also disagreed about the inventory and apportioning the sale proceeds.
In early 2003, Bradley changed the locks on the business. Bradley alleges that Robertson took an `unknown amount of the inventory' and never accounted for it. Br. of Appellant at 10. Believing he had not been adequately compensated for the vehicles and inventory Robertson took, Bradley sued. Robertson brought a counterclaim and third party complaint requesting that Bradley perform an accounting of Plateau, that the trial court issue an order divesting Bradley of all interests in the company, and for an award of damages to be determined at trial, among other requests for relief.
Bradley's first counsel, David Ambrose, filed the action in February 2003. By October 15, 2003, after failing to comply with the case schedule order, Ambrose attempted to withdraw from the case. Bradley fired him in court on October 31, 2003. Michael Siefkes started representing Bradley in mid-January 2004.
When Bradley filed his complaint in February 2003, the court set a case schedule. The order notified the parties that `{c}ompliance with the scheduling rules is mandatory and failure to comply shall result in sanctions appropriate to the violation.' Clerk's Papers (CP) at 394. In addition, the order set trial for February 19, 2004, and required Bradley to disclose his primary witnesses by August 15, 2003.
On April 17, 2003, Robertson moved for an order of default on his counterclaim. On April 25, the court denied the motion but ordered Bradley to answer Robertson's counterclaim by April 29, 2003. The court also ordered Bradley to pay $250 in sanctions to Robertson's counsel within 30 days. On May 1, 2003, Robertson moved for contempt and sanctions for failure to follow the court's order. Also on May 1, Bradley answered the counterclaim. On June 10, 2003, Robertson moved for contempt and entry of judgment because Bradley had not paid the sanctions ordered on April 25, 2003.
On April 17, 2003, Robertson moved to compel a response to his request for a statement of damages. On April 25, 2003, the court denied the motion but ordered Bradley to respond to Robertson's statement of damages by July 28, 2003. On August 6, 2003, Robertson moved for contempt and terms because Bradley had not complied with the April 25 order. On August 19, 2003, the court ordered Bradley to `comply with the April 25, 2003 order of Judge Hogan' by August 26, 2003. CP at 101. The court sanctioned Bradley $50 for every day the statement of damages was late.
On June 10, 2003, Robertson moved to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production. On September 12, 2003, the court ordered Bradley to answer interrogatories and requests for admission (set one and two only, and question three) by October 3, 2003. The court also reset Bradley's deadline for initial disclosure of witnesses to September 26, 2003.
In August 2003, Robertson moved for an order deeming matters admitted. On September 12, 2003, the court ruled that if Bradley did not respond to certain requests for admission by September 26, 2003, they would be deemed admitted.
On October 14, 2003, Robertson moved to dismiss Bradley's case under Civil Rule 37(B)(2)(C). He argued that Bradley had failed to follow the case scheduling order, failed to follow the September 12, 2003 order to disclose witnesses by September 26, 2003, failed to disclose witnesses and respond to interrogatories, and failed to narrow the witness list when asked to specify fact witnesses. Bradley asked for time to respond to Robertson's motion; the court gave him until October 31, 2003.
When Bradley failed to respond by October 31, the court found that he CP at 453. The court did not grant Robertson's motion to dismiss, but it ordered Bradley to fully respond to Robertson's interrogatories and requests for production within 45 days of the order. The trial court also ordered Bradley to pay $1,000 as sanctions to Robertson's counsel; and it ordered Bradley's counsel, Ambrose, to pay $500 to Robertson within five days of the order. Finally, the trial court ruled that it would dismiss Bradley's complaint if he failed to respond to Robertson's first set of interrogatories and requests for production and if he failed to identify witnesses.
When Ambrose was late to the October 31, 2003 hearing, Bradley fired him. The court ordered Ambrose to deliver the boxes of case documents that he claimed to have prepared to Robertson's counsel that day by 10:30 a.m. On December 18, 2003, Robertson again moved to dismiss under Civil Rule 37(b)(2)(C) because Bradley failed to answer the interrogatories and requests or identify witnesses. On January 2, 2004, when Bradley did not respond to the motion, the court dismissed his complaint without prejudice. The court found that Bradley refused to comply with the October 31, 2003 order; that his failure substantially prejudiced Robertson's ability to prepare for trial; that his refusal to obey the order was willful or deliberate; and that lesser sanctions would be ineffective.
Robertson continued to seek discovery from Bradley and Ambrose, moving for contempt on December 18, 2003, because Ambrose had not paid the $1,500 sanctions ordered on October 31, 2003, and he had not delivered the documents. On January 7, 2004, the court found Ambrose in contempt for willful violation of the October 31, 2003 order, imposed sanctions of $150 a day until the documents were produced, and ordered Ambrose to pay $750 in attorney fees and $35 in costs to Robertson's counsel.
On January 13, 2004, Robertson again moved for a default judgment. He argued that he had received no additional discovery since October 31, 2003, and that the requested documents were vital to the case. On February 3, 2004, Bradley responded that he should not be required to disclose additional discovery material because the court had already imposed the most severe sanction by dismissing his complaint.
On February 6, 2004, the court granted Robertson's motion for default and struck Bradley's answer to the counterclaim. The court found that Bradley had failed to comply with the February 21, 2003 case scheduling order; the September 12, 2003 order to compel; and the October 31, 2003 discovery order. The court again found that the refusal was willful or deliberate, that Bradley's conduct substantially prejudiced Robertson's ability to prepare for the scheduled February 19, 2004 trial, and that lesser sanctions would not suffice.
The parties went to trial over what damages Robertson was entitled to on his counterclaim and third party complaint. The court sustained Robertson's objection to Bradley's proposed document showing the value of vehicles and other inventory.
The court noted that although the document was generated in February 2003, it was not disclosed to Robertson's counsel until trial. The court explained that it would not allow such an `ambush,' regardless of how relevant the document was. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 97. Accordingly, the court ruled, RP at 97.
In June 2004, the trial court entered its findings and a judgment for Robertson. Bradley appeals.
Bradley challenges the trial court's sanctions for discovery violations. A party may move to compel discovery if the opposing party fails to answer questions in a deposition, fails to...
To continue reading
Request your trial