Court Opinion

ID: 9720661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:38:33.638937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:20.433591
License: Public Domain

WOODS (Fred), J.
I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to express my view that this case is an example of the “egregious” conduct mentioned by Supreme Court Justice Reynoso in his concurring opinion in Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 927 [231 Cal.Rptr. 738, 727 P.2d 1019]. In discussing the power of the court to dismiss an action although not specifically provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, he states: “However, I do not believe that the staff report relied on by Justice Grodin (post) and the majority opinion as legislative history [citation] is a sufficient basis for precluding court exercise of inherent powers. I would leave open the question whether, in a particularly egregious case, a trial court would have inherent power to dismiss the action. ” (Italics added.) Justices Lucas and Panelli concurred in Justice Reynoso’s opinion.
Unfortunately, Justice Reynoso’s view is dicta expressed in a minority opinion. I suggest, however, that this case might be a suitable one for the California Supreme Court to reassess its views expressed in Lyons. Conjointly the Legislature may wish to amend Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 to provide for dismissal as an alternative under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. It appears to this concurring justice that such an amendment would be in the spirit of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act1 where the Legislature has already provided in Government Code section 68609, subdivision (d) as follows: “(d) In order to enforce the requirements of an exemplary delay reduction program and orders issued in cases assigned to it, the judges of the program shall have all the powers to impose sanctions authorized by law, including the power to dismiss actions or strike pleadings, if it appears that less severe sanctions would not be effective after taking *810into account the effect of previous sanctions or previous lack of compliance in the case. Judges are encouraged to impose sanctions to achieve the purposes of this article.” (Italics added.)
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 27, 1990. Kennard, J., and Arabian, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

 We are unable to discern from the record whether this case has been assigned to “fast track” as implementation of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act.