Silliphant v. City of Beverly Hills
California Court of Appeal
195 Cal. App. 3d 1239 (1987)

- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Beverly Hills police officer Harold Moody (defendant) issued a parking ticket to Silliphant (plaintiff). Silliphant claimed that the ticket incident escalated to violence and Silliphant’s unwarranted arrest. Silliphant brought an action against Moody and the City of Beverly Hills (defendant) for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, and civil-rights violations. During discovery, Silliphant obtained two extensions of time to answer interrogatories but failed to answer within the time given. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss based upon Silliphant’s failure to comply with discovery and allowed her more time. The trial court then assessed costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees against Silliphant’s counsel for interfering with her deposition and ordered referee supervision and issued a protective order. The day before a scheduled arbitration hearing, Silliphant’s counsel spoke to the arbitrator’s receptionist but did not request a continuance, nor did he do so the next day when he failed to show up for the hearing but instead spoke to the arbitrator on the phone using offensive language. The arbitrator entered an award for Moody and the city. The next day, Silliphant requested a trial de novo, claiming that she had been misled by Moody and the city into thinking that arbitration would be continued and that she was entitled to a trial de novo as a matter of law. Moody and the city moved to dismiss the case and strike the motion for a trial de novo, and the trial court granted the motion to strike without dismissing the case. Silliphant appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boren, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.