Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell - 18 Cal. App. 5th 154, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 727 (2017)

Rule:

Concerns about procedural shortcuts may implicate constitutional issues. Both the federal and California Constitutions compel the government to afford persons due process before depriving them of any property interest. U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a). This requires that a party at risk of loss be given notice and an opportunity to be heard, at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. This is a flexible requirement, varying with the circumstances of any given case. The function of the legal process afforded by these constitutional mandates is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions. And, if due process was not afforded before an order depriving the party of his or her interest was entered, an appellate court must reverse the order. 

Facts:

A wildfire started in Plumas County on September 3, 2007, and burned approximately 65,000 acres over the course of multiple weeks. This fire, dubbed the “Moonlight Fire,” was at the center of several actions filed by plaintiffs Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), Grange Insurance Association, and multiple landowners in 2009 and 2010 against defendants Eunice E. Howell, individually, and on behalf of Howell's Forest Harvesting (collectively Howell)—the designated lead defendant and respondent; Kelly Crismon; J.W. Bush; Sierra Pacific Industries (Sierra Pacific); W.M. Beaty and Associates, Inc. (Beaty); and multiple landowner defendants (landowner defendants) for recovery of fire suppression and investigation costs and for monetary damages. On the eve of trial in July 2013, the consolidated actions were dismissed following a hearing on a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for presentation of a prima facie case pursuant to Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367 [5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 882] after the trial court concluded Cal Fire could not as a matter of law state a claim against Sierra Pacific, Beaty, or landowner defendants, and that no plaintiff had presented a prima facie case against any defendant. After judgment was entered, the trial court awarded defendants costs without apportionment amongst plaintiffs. It also ordered Cal Fire to pay to defendants attorney fees and expert fees totaling more than $28 million because defendants as prevailing parties were entitled to recover attorney fees on either a contractual basis or as private attorneys general, or alternatively as discovery sanctions. The trial court additionally imposed terminating sanctions against Cal Fire. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging both the judgment of dismissal (case No. C074879) and the postjudgment awards. Plaintiffs also requested that any hearings on remand be conducted by a different judge.

Issue:

Was procedural due process violated by dismissing a complex civil case without adequate notice of issues requiring presentation of a prima facie case at a pretrial hearing?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that procedural due process under U.S. Const., 14th Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a), was violated by dismissing a complex civil case without adequate notice of issues requiring presentation of a prima facie case at a pretrial hearing. An agency could not recover fire suppression costs based on common law theories of negligence not expressly included in Health & Saf. Code, §§ 13009, 13009.1, or on vicarious liability. False discovery responses warranted monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, but only to the extent of the costs resulting from misuse of the discovery process. The court found that the trial court had jurisdiction to impose terminating sanctions after judgment, and substantial evidence supported its finding of egregious misconduct. Lastly, the court said that attorney fees were not recoverable under either Civ. Code, § 1717, or Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5.