Garcia v. McCutchen

16 Cal. 4th 469, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 319, 940 P.2d 906 (1997)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Garcia v. McCutchen

California Supreme Court
16 Cal. 4th 469, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 319, 940 P.2d 906 (1997)

JL

Facts

Danny Garcia (plaintiff) was injured during an altercation at Henry’s Cantina. Garcia sued Fern and David Avila, individually and doing business as Henry’s Cantina (defendants), for his injuries. However, Garcia’s attorney did not file either a proof of service or an at-issue trial memorandum by the deadlines set out in the court’s local rules. These rules were established to implement the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act. The trial court ordered Garcia’s attorney to appear for a case-management hearing to address these local-rule violations. On the morning of the hearing, Garcia’s attorney told the trial court that he was out of the county in trial in another case and did not appear at the hearing. The trial court issued a monetary sanction against the attorney for violating the local rules and for failing to appear. On its own initiative, the trial court also moved to dismiss Garcia’s lawsuit for failing to comply with the local rules and set another hearing to address the motion. The trial court’s order said that the hearing would be cancelled if the at-issue memorandum was filed. The memorandum was not filed before the second hearing, and the trial court issued another monetary sanction. A third hearing was set, and the trial court warned that the case would be dismissed if the memorandum was still not filed. No memorandum was filed before the third hearing, and Garcia’s attorney failed to appear. The trial court then dismissed the case without prejudice. Garcia’s attorney filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal, but the motion was denied. Garcia appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed. The California Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 747,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership