## Facts

- A Beverly Hills police officer issued Silliphant a parking citation; Silliphant alleged the encounter escalated into excessive force and an unwarranted arrest.
- Silliphant sued the City and the officer for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, and civil-rights violations.
- During discovery, Silliphant failed to serve timely interrogatory responses despite multiple extensions.
- The trial court denied a dismissal motion based on discovery abuse but imposed monetary sanctions on Silliphant’s counsel, found counsel interfered with a deposition, and ordered future depositions supervised by a referee under a protective order.
- The case was referred to mandatory judicial arbitration and an arbitration hearing was set.
- Before the hearing, Silliphant’s counsel spoke with the arbitrator’s receptionist but did not secure a formal continuance.
- On the hearing date, counsel did not appear and instead called the arbitrator; the call was described as offensive and unprofessional.
- The arbitrator proceeded and issued an award for the City and the officer.
- Silliphant filed a timely request for a trial de novo, claiming defense counsel misled her into believing the arbitration would be continued.
- Defendants moved to strike the request for trial de novo; the trial court granted the motion, leaving the arbitration award in effect.

## Issues

1. Whether a party retains an unconditional statutory right to a trial de novo after judicial arbitration when counsel willfully fails to appear and engages in misconduct related to the arbitration hearing.
2. Whether the trial court had authority, under the arbitration scheme and its inherent powers, to strike a request for trial de novo as a sanction for misconduct undermining the arbitration process.
3. Whether alleged misleading conduct by opposing counsel regarding a continuance required granting a trial de novo despite counsel’s nonappearance.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order striking Silliphant’s request for a trial de novo.
- The court held the trial court could deny a trial de novo by striking the request as a sanction where counsel’s willful nonappearance and related misconduct undermined the mandatory arbitration process.
- The court rejected Silliphant’s claim that she was justified in not appearing based on informal communications about a continuance in the absence of a formal continuance order or clear record support.
- The arbitration award for the defendants remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- The statutory mechanism allowing a trial de novo after judicial arbitration is conditioned on good-faith participation and compliance with arbitration procedures and court orders.
- Trial courts have authority—through arbitration rules, sanction provisions, and inherent power to control proceedings—to impose serious sanctions, including striking a trial-de-novo request, for willful misconduct that frustrates mandatory arbitration.
- Willful nonappearance at an arbitration hearing, coupled with abusive conduct toward the arbitrator or process, may be treated as sanctionable obstruction rather than excusable neglect.
- A party generally cannot rely on informal understandings about continuances to excuse nonappearance; absent a formal continuance or adequate record support, the trial court may find the reliance unjustified.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court’s use of sanctions to protect mandatory judicial arbitration, concluding that a party may forfeit access to a trial de novo when counsel willfully fails to appear and engages in misconduct that disrupts the arbitration process.


Silliphant v. City of Beverly Hills, 195 Cal. App. 3d 1239 (Ct. App. 1987)