Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs sued defendants, asserting causes of action for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, fraud, and breach of contract. The Orange County Superior Court, California, entered a default judgment against defendants in an amount exceeding $ 27 million as a sanction for their discovery abuses. Defendants appealed.

Overview
The instant court concluded that the sanction orders violated due process and the notice requirements of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023. Two defendants did not receive any notice, much less adequate notice, that the trial court might impose a terminating sanction as a result of their discovery abuses. The only notice given these defendants was for an order shortening time on a motion to compel attendance and for monetary and other unspecified sanctions. Defaulting a third defendant as a sanction was even more egregious because he was not named in any motion to compel or in any discovery order. Since no discovery order was directed to the third defendant, he could not have violated a discovery order. With respect to a fourth defendant, the ex parte applications mentioned that plaintiffs were seeking relief to file a motion to compel and for sanctions. The trial court's order requiring the fourth defendant to appear through its counsel with documents in hand did not refer to sanctions of any type. The fourth defendant had no notice that sanctions of any kind might be imposed for its discovery abuses. The default judgment was void.

Outcome: California termination checklist
The default judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Procedural Posture
Plaintiff broker sued defendant mother and defendant daughter to set aside a conveyance of real and personal property from the mother to the daughter on the ground that the conveyance was in fraud of creditors. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) set aside the conveyance. The daughter appealed.

Overview
The mother executed a contract giving the broker the exclusive right to sell a tract of land on a commission basis and appointing a trustee. The mother later cancelled the contract. Prior to that time she had conveyed the land to her daughter. The broker sued the mother, the daughter, and the trustee for damages for breach of contract and obtained a judgment against the mother. That judgment was reversed by the California Supreme Court. In the instant action, the broker sought to set aside the sale by the mother to the daughter based on the judgment obtained in the breach of contract action. The court on appeal reversed. The broker, as a purported judgment creditor, could attack the conveyance from the mother to the daughter as a fraudulent conveyance before the prior judgment became final. However, the prior judgment could not be relied on to attack the transfer from the mother to the daughter once the prior judgment was reversed. At that point, the broker lost his position as a judgment creditor. The judgment on appeal had to be reversed because the prior judgment in favor of the broker that was the basis of the judgment in the instant case had been reversed.

Outcome
The judgment under review was reversed.