## Facts

- Danny Garcia sued the owners and operators of a cocktail lounge for injuries arising from an altercation.
- Fresno County local case-management rules required service and proof of service within 60 days and an at-issue memorandum within 180 days.
- Garcia’s attorney repeatedly failed to meet service and filing deadlines, failed to submit a required declaration explaining noncompliance, and failed to appear at multiple status and dismissal hearings.
- The trial court imposed monetary sanctions on counsel and later dismissed the action “without prejudice” for violations of the local delay-reduction rules.
- Because the limitations period had expired, the dismissal effectively terminated Garcia’s claims.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding dismissal was barred when the violations were attributable to counsel rather than the litigant.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to determine the scope of a trial court’s authority to dismiss for noncompliance with local rules implementing the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may dismiss an action as a sanction for violating local delay-reduction rules when the noncompliance is attributable to counsel, not the party.
2. Whether Government Code § 68608(b) authorizes dismissal notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure § 575.2(b)’s prohibition on dismissal for attorney-caused local rule violations.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the dismissal.
- The court held dismissal was not an authorized sanction where noncompliance with local delay-reduction rules was attributable to counsel rather than the litigant.
- Government Code § 68608(b) did not expand dismissal authority beyond sanctions “authorized by law,” which incorporated the limitation in Code of Civil Procedure § 575.2(b).
- The matter could be addressed through nonterminating sanctions directed at counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Code of Civil Procedure § 575.2(b) bars dismissal (and other terminating sanctions) for violations of local rules when the violation is attributable to counsel, requiring sanctions to be directed at the attorney instead.
- Government Code § 68608(b) permits sanctions, including dismissal, only when such sanctions are “authorized by law.”
- Statutes addressing the same subject must be read together; the delay-reduction sanction provision must be construed consistently with § 575.2(b)’s protection of the litigant’s cause of action.
- Courts retain tools to enforce compliance through nonterminating measures (including monetary sanctions and orders directed at counsel) without extinguishing the client’s claims due solely to attorney error.

## Conclusion

A trial court implementing delay-reduction case-management rules may sanction attorney noncompliance, but it may not dismiss the client’s action when the violations are attributable to counsel and not the party, because dismissal is not “authorized by law” under the controlling statutory scheme.


Garcia v. McCutchen, 16 Cal. 4th 469 (Cal. 1997)