Foxgate Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Bramalea California, Inc.
California Supreme Court
25 P.3d 1117 (2001)
The Foxgate Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (Foxgate) (plaintiff) represented the owners of a 65-unit condominium complex developed and constructed by Bramalea California, Inc. and related parties (Bramalea) (defendants). Foxgate sued Bramalea for alleged construction defects in the complex. The trial court ordered the parties to attend a mediation and to make their best efforts to cooperate in the mediation process. Judge Peter Smith, a retired judge, was appointed as the mediator and a date was set. To accommodate Bramalea’s counsel, the original mediation date was rescheduled for September 16-22, 1997. Bramalea sought to continue the mediation again, but Judge Smith denied the request. Bramalea filed a challenge to the mediator that was denied by the trial court. Bramalea appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeals summarily denied the appeal. The first day of the mediation was specifically set for each party’s experts to interact with each other. On September 16, Foxgate appeared with nine experts. Bramalea’s counsel appeared 30 minutes late and did not bring any experts. The mediation was then cancelled because Judge Smith determined that the mediation could not proceed without any experts for Bramalea. Foxgate moved for sanctions because Bramalea had not cooperated in the mediation. The motion included a description of the comments made by Bramalea’s counsel during the mediation. Additionally, the motion attached Judge Smith’s mediation report. The report also described the comments and actions of Bramalea’s counsel and recommended that costs be awarded to Foxgate. Bramalea argued that all communications in the mediation were confidential under California Evidence Code § 1119 and § 1121. The trial court granted the motion for sanctions, and Bramalea appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions order but endorsed a nonstatutory exception to the confidentiality of mediation communications. The California Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Baxter, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.