## Facts

- Samy Tliche, doing business as Pirata Restaurant, sued his landlords/property managers over disputes arising from a restaurant lease.
- Tliche filed the complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on December 21, 1995.
- Service on defendants was not completed within the local fast-track period; numerous early attempts at service were unsuccessful.
- The trial court issued an order to show cause (OSC) regarding failure to prosecute under local fast-track authority and related statutes.
- At the OSC hearing, Tliche’s counsel did not appear by the scheduled time, and the court dismissed the action in its entirety.
- The minute order stated the case was dismissed but did not specify the rule or statute authorizing dismissal.
- After the dismissal, counsel renewed service efforts and eventually accomplished substituted service.
- Tliche moved to vacate the dismissal, asserting the nonappearance was due to a calendaring/scheduling problem; the trial court denied relief, relying on a local rule requiring service within 60 days and permitting dismissal for noncompliance.
- Tliche appealed the dismissal and the denial of relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may dismiss an action under a local fast-track rule for failure to serve within the prescribed time when the delay is attributable to counsel rather than the client.
2. Whether dismissal as the first sanction, without considering less severe sanctions, violates Government Code section 68608(b) and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether Code of Civil Procedure section 575.2(b) requires sanctions for local-rule noncompliance to be directed at counsel and not to impair the client’s claim absent client fault.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal and the order denying the motion to vacate.
- The trial court erred by imposing dismissal as the initial sanction for violation of the local service rule without considering less drastic measures as required by Government Code section 68608(b).
- Because timely service is ordinarily within counsel’s control and the record did not show client fault, any sanction should have been directed at counsel rather than terminating the client’s case.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these statutory limits, leaving open the possibility of appropriate lesser sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Under Government Code section 68608(b), when enforcing delay-reduction rules, a court must consider sanctions less severe than dismissal before ordering dismissal as a sanction.
- Under Code of Civil Procedure section 575.2(b), when noncompliance with local rules is counsel’s responsibility, penalties must be imposed on counsel and must not adversely affect the party’s cause of action absent evidence of party fault.
- Local fast-track rules authorizing early service and sanctions must be applied consistently with statewide statutes limiting when dismissal is permissible.
- Dismissal for procedural noncompliance is an abuse of discretion where the court effectively punishes the client for counsel’s errors without required statutory findings and without exploring lesser sanctions.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that dismissing a case for failure to meet a local fast-track service deadline, without first considering lesser sanctions and without evidence the client caused the delay, improperly penalizes the client for counsel’s conduct and exceeds the permissible use of dismissal under governing statutes.


Tliche v. Van Quathem, 66 Cal. App. 4th 1054, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458 (Ct. App. 1998)