K.J. v. LA Unified School Dist.

Filed 2/23/17 K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
K.J., a Minor, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B269864
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC505356)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, William P. Barry, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Werksman Jackson Hathaway & Quinn, Kelly C. Quinn
and Mark W. Allen for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Coleman and Associates, John M. Coleman; Law Offices of
Bruce T. McIntosh and Bruce T. McIntosh for Defendants and
Respondents.
_________________________

-- 1 of 12 --

2
Plaintiff and appellant K.J., a minor, purports to appeal the
trial court’s order requiring her attorney, Luis Carrillo, to pay
attorney fees and costs as discovery sanctions to defendant and
respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
Because K.J. was not sanctioned and attorney Carrillo has not
appealed, we lack jurisdiction to review the sanctions order and
therefore dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2013, after 12-year-old K.J. was allegedly sexually
assaulted by an unknown male in a restroom at an LAUSD
school, she sued LAUSD for negligence.1
In June 2015, LAUSD moved to compel K.J. to undergo a
neuropsychiatric examination to be conducted by Dr. Mohan
Nair. K.J. moved for a protective order. Although K.J.’s motion
is not included in the record on appeal, other portions of the
record demonstrate she sought to limit or preclude Dr. Nair from
questioning her about the details of the sexual assault in order to
avoid “retraumatizing” her. K.J. urged such questioning was
unnecessary because she had already described the details of the
assault at her deposition and to various medical professionals.
On July 15, 2015, the trial court denied K.J.’s motion for a
protective order, granted LAUSD’s motion to compel, and ordered
K.J. to submit to a neuropsychiatric examination at Dr. Nair’s
office on July 28, 2015. The court declined to impose limitations
on the scope of Dr. Nair’s questioning during the examination.
1 The record on appeal does not contain a copy of the
complaint, but there is no dispute that K.J. filed a negligence
complaint making these allegations.

-- 2 of 12 --

3
K.J. appeared for the examination at the appointed time,
accompanied by her mother and attorney Carrillo. What
happened next was disputed by the parties and gave rise to the
discovery dispute that resulted in the sanctions at issue here.
According to K.J., prior to the examination Carrillo simply asked
Dr. Nair to be mindful of K.J.’s condition and limit his questions
concerning the details of the sexual assault. According to
LAUSD, Carrillo’s instruction or request to Dr. Nair and Nair’s
office manager, in K.J.’s presence, “completely undermined” the
trial court’s July 15, 2015 order and “directly led” K.J. to refuse to
answer questions during the examination. LAUSD also insisted
that Carrillo “unilaterally departed” with K.J. before the
examination was completed; K.J. countered that Nair cancelled
the remaining portion of the examination when Carrillo advised
him that K.J. had a statutory right to audiotape a segment of the
examination involving a test that Nair claimed was proprietary.
On approximately July 31, 2015, LAUSD brought an ex
parte application for monetary, issue, and terminating sanctions
against K.J. and/or Carrillo. K.J. opposed the motion, and a
series of briefs and supplemental briefs from both parties
followed, supported by, inter alia, letters from or declarations by
Dr. Nair, Nair’s office manager, attorney Carrillo, and K.J.’s
mother, as well as transcripts of portions of the audiotaped
neuropsychiatric examination.
On September 16, 2015, the trial court issued to Carrillo an
order to show cause (OSC) why he should not be adjudged guilty
of contempt for willfully disobeying the court’s July 15, 2015
order. The court’s OSC was accompanied by the trial judge’s
three-page declaration explaining that Carrillo’s statements at
Dr. Nair’s office “could be a willful violation” of its order. Because

-- 3 of 12 --

4
a factual dispute existed regarding what actually occurred, the
court ordered an evidentiary hearing.
On September 30, 2015, the evidentiary hearing transpired
and the court found Carrillo was guilty of contempt. The court
further stated, “I’m going to allow [LAUSD] to make an
application for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated
with the contentious conduct on July 28th, 2015.”
Accepting the trial court’s invitation, on approximately
October 2, 2015 LAUSD moved for sanctions against Carrillo for
violating the court’s July 15, 2015 order. K.J. opposed the
sanctions motion.
On October 13, 2015, the trial court issued a written order
finding Carrillo guilty of deliberate, willful, and premeditated
disobedience in violation of its order that Dr. Nair’s questioning
of K.J. was not to be limited. The court opined that Carrillo’s
conduct at the neuropsychiatric examination was “a flagrant
violation” of the court’s ruling denying the motion for a protective
order. The court imposed a 24-hour jail sentence and a $750 fine
on Carrillo. The written order additionally stated that LAUSD
“may make application for Fees and Costs associated with the
Order to Show Cause re Contempt of Court issued to Luis A.
Carrillo on September 16, 2015 and the Hearing on
September 30, 2015.”
On October 23, 2015, Carrillo challenged the contempt
order in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed with this
court, in the related proceeding of In re Carrillo, B267743. On
October 26, 2015, we issued an order staying the trial court’s
October 13, 2015 order.
On or about November 9, 2015 LAUSD filed a
supplemental motion for sanctions in the trial court. That motion

-- 4 of 12 --

5
sought to recover “direct fees and costs associated with [the
neuropsychiatric examination] issue, and the Contempt Hearing,”
including costs for Nair’s and the office manager’s appearance at
the contempt hearing. In total, LAUSD sought $100,000 from
Carrillo and his law office, comprised of $52,247.41 in fees and
costs and $47,752.59 “in sanctions to deter future misconduct.”
On November 19, 2015, the trial court granted LAUSD’s
sanctions motion in part, ordering Carrillo and his law firm to
pay to LAUSD fees and costs of $16,111. The court explained the
only issue it considered was “the issue of compensation . . . that
should be . . . awarded to [LAUSD] because of the conduct that
occurred” at the neuropsychiatric examination; “anything that
happened working up to the [examination]” was excluded, as
were costs related to the examination that would have been
“incurred anyway.” Apparently included in the $16,111 were fees
related to the contempt hearing. Counsel for LAUSD queried
whether the court’s order covered fees and costs expended in
regard to both the discovery dispute and the contempt hearing.
The court replied that its order covered the “[t]otality.” In
response to a similar inquiry from K.J.’s counsel, the court
clarified, “It’s not so much for the contempt, it’s for the extra
work that was created by a discovery problem. . . . I am not
looking at this as contempt sanctions. I mean, it’s arising out [of]
that incident and it came up in connection with a contempt
hearing, but it’s really a motion for interference with [the]
discovery process. And that’s why I think it’s allowable.” When
K.J.’s counsel pointed out that this court had issued a stay order,
the trial court explained: “This is different.” “[T]his is intended
to compensate [LAUSD] for extra work that was incurred in what
I viewed as being an obstruction of the discovery process whether

-- 5 of 12 --

6
or not it was contemptuous. [¶] So, this particular decision will
stand, in my view, regardless of what the appellate decision is.”
“I’m not penalizing someone. [¶] . . . [¶] There is no penal
component on this award.”
On December 1, 2015, the trial court issued a written order
on the motion. It required that “Luis A. Carrillo, individually,
and/or the Law Offices of Luis A. Carrillo, jointly and severally,”
pay $16,111 to LAUSD.
On January 8, 2016 we issued a Palma notice2 to the trial
court. Treating the habeas petition as a petition for a writ of
prohibition, we concluded there was not substantial evidence to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Carrillo had willfully
disobeyed the trial court’s order of July 15, 2015. Thus, the trial
court lacked jurisdiction to enter the October 13, 2015 contempt
order and was required to find Carrillo not guilty. In light of this
“clear legal error,” we notified the parties of our intention to issue
a peremptory writ of mandate.3
On January 14, 2016, the trial court indicated its intent to
issue a new order finding Carrillo not guilty of contempt. On
January 29, 2016, the trial court vacated its October 13, 2015
order and issued a new order finding Carrillo not guilty of
deliberate, willful and premeditated disobedience of a court order.
It further stated: “The Court’s new order does not in any way
reverse or change the Court’s previous order, dated December 1,
2015, awarding sanctions totaling $16,111.00 to LAUSD, based
2 Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d
171.
3 We grant K.J.’s request that we take judicial notice of
records in In re Carrillo, B267743. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453, 459.)

-- 6 of 12 --

7
upon its finding that he [Carrillo] had violated discovery statutes
and the Court’s Rulings in that regard.”
On February 4, 2016, we dismissed In re Carrillo as moot
and vacated the stay.
On January 26, 2016, K.J. filed a notice of appeal. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(12).) The notice of appeal listed only
K.J. as the appellant.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
K.J. seeks reversal of the portions of the trial court’s
December 1, 2015 order awarding LAUSD fees and costs relating
to the contempt proceeding. She argues that the order was void
because it violated our temporary stay order. Further, she
argues, even if the order was not void, the trial court abused its
discretion by (1) ordering fees and costs related to the contempt
proceeding, given that its order finding Carrillo in contempt was
vacated; (2) ordering sanctions not authorized by the pertinent
discovery statutes; and (3) ordering fees and costs LAUSD had
not yet incurred.
LAUSD, on the other hand, argues that K.J. lacks standing
to bring this appeal; the record on appeal is insufficient because
it does not include K.J.’s motion for a protective order, which
“might well provide a fuller and more complete picture of the
basis” for the trial court’s ruling; our stay order did not stay all
proceedings in the underlying case; and the monies awarded were
proper discovery sanctions.
LAUSD’s first contention has merit. Accordingly, we do not
reach the parties’ other contentions, and order the appeal
dismissed.

-- 7 of 12 --

8
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(12),
provides that an appeal may be taken from “an order directing
payment of monetary sanctions by a party or an attorney for a
party if the amount exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(12); Ellis v. Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 853, 868.)
However, because K.J. was not sanctioned, and attorney Carrillo
has not appealed, we lack jurisdiction to review the sanctions
ruling. (People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. (2014)
226 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 (Indiana Lumbermens); Calhoun v. Vallejo
City Unified School Dist. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 39, 42 (Calhoun);
In re Marriage of Knowles (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 35, 38, fn. 1;
Taylor v. Varga (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 750, 761-762, fn. 12; but
see Kane v. Hurley (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 859, 861, fn. 4.)
Our decision in Indiana Lumbermens is controlling. There,
a surety company moved to set aside a summary judgment on a
forfeited bail bond. (Indiana Lumbermens, supra, 226
Cal.App.4th at p. 3.) In its postjudgment order denying Indiana’s
motion to set aside the summary judgment, the trial court
sanctioned Indiana’s attorney, Rorabaugh, for making an
allegedly misleading statement in a reply brief. On appeal,
Indiana contended the sanctions order was erroneous. (Id. at
p. 10.) We explained: “We lack jurisdiction to review the
sanctions ruling because the sanctioned attorney, Rorabaugh, did
not appeal. The sole appellant is Indiana, the defendant surety.
However, Indiana is not aggrieved by the sanctions ruling
because it was not ordered to pay sanctions (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 902), and it cannot appeal the sanctions award on Rorabaugh’s
behalf.” (Ibid.)

-- 8 of 12 --

9
We observed that Calhoun was directly on point. The
appellate court in Calhoun held it lacked jurisdiction to review a
sanctions ruling because “the purported appeal is not by the
sanctioned attorney, Michael Calhoun, but by the plaintiff,
George Calhoun. [Former s]ubdivision (k) of section 904.1[4]
authorizes an appeal of a sanction ruling by the party against
whom the sanctions were imposed. [Citation.] Thus, any right of
appeal was vested in Michael, not George. Had Michael included
himself as an additional appellant in George’s notice of appeal,
we could have liberally construed the notice of appeal in favor of
its sufficiency [citations], but Michael did not do so. Absent any
attempted appeal by the sanctioned party, the sanction ruling is
not … reviewable.” (Calhoun, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 42;
accord, In re Marriage of Knowles, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at
p. 38, fn. 1 [“[w]hen a sanctions ruling is imposed only upon a
party’s attorney, the attorney is the aggrieved party with the
right to appeal”].)
Here the court’s sanction order was imposed only against
attorney Carrillo and his law firm, not against K.J. Thus,
Carrillo, not K.J., is the aggrieved party. But Carrillo is not a
party to this appeal. The notice of appeal states that “K.J., a
minor through her guardian ad litem, Erick J[.],” appeals the
order. K.J.’s opening brief states that “K.J. appeals the Superior
Court’s December 1, 2015 Order erroneously awarding LAUSD
$16,111.00 in fees and costs.” Accordingly, as in Indiana
4 See now Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivisions
(a)(12) and (b). (Indiana Lumbermens, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at
p. 10, fn. 7.)

-- 9 of 12 --

10
Lumbermens and Calhoun, we lack jurisdiction to review the
sanctions order.
K.J.’s arguments to the contrary do not compel a different
conclusion. She attempts to distinguish Indiana Lumbermens
and Calhoun by suggesting that the problem in those cases was
that the appellants’ and the attorneys’ claims were commingled,
whereas here, no such commingling exists. But this was simply
not the basis for the appellate courts’ holdings in those cases.
Both clearly hold that only the aggrieved party may appeal.
K.J. next argues that any “violation” is merely “technical
and should not preclude this Court from hearing the merits” of
the case. She observes, correctly, that it “ ‘is and has been the
law of this state that notices of appeal are to be liberally
construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably
clear what appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the
respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced.’ ”
(Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249; Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) Here, she argues, it is clear what order
is being appealed and LAUSD cannot have been misled. That
may be so, but in our view the weight of authority counsels
against stretching the liberal construction requirement so far as
to deem a notice of appeal to include an unnamed party.5
K.J.’s citation to Moyal v. Lanphear (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d
491, is unavailing. There, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s
personal injury complaint and imposed sanctions on her attorney,
Alden. But both the plaintiff and the attorney appealed. (Id. at
5 Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 967 allowed a
client to file an appeal of a sanction award that was ordered
jointly against both the client and the attorney. (Id. at pp. 970,
972-974.) That is not the situation here.

-- 10 of 12 --

11
p. 494 [“Alden also appeals, contending the trial court’s
imposition of monetary sanctions was improper”].) In considering
whether the attorney had standing to appeal, the court noted
that although Moyal was the only plaintiff at the trial court level,
attorney Alden included himself as an additional appellant in the
notice of appeal. (Id. at p. 497.) The attorney had a “distinct and
separate right to appeal [the sanctions order] as a collateral
matter.” (Ibid.) The court observed that “[a]lthough on a
collateral appeal it would be the better practice for an attorney to
file a separate notice of appeal, since he or she is not a party to
the action below,” given the directive in favor of liberal
construction and the policy in favor of hearing appeals on the
merits, the attorney had standing. (Ibid.) In contrast, the
problem here is not that Carrillo failed to file a separate notice of
appeal; he has not filed a notice of appeal at all. Under these
circumstances the appeal must be dismissed.

-- 11 of 12 --

12
DISPOSITION
K.J.’s purported appeal from the trial court’s December 1,
2015 order is dismissed. Respondent LAUSD to recover its costs
on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ALDRICH, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
GOSWAMI, J.
 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.

-- 12 of 12 --