King v. Super. Ct.
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the respondent courts informal letter response, and the reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
A court has the inherent power to control matters and behavior. It may also impose sanctions for bad faith actions or those, which cause unnecessary delay; these sanctions are compensating expenses payable to the other side. (Code Civ. Proc., 128, 128.5.) However, the court does not have the inherent authority to impose punitive money sanctions. (Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 638; see also Andrews v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 779, 783.)
Comments on King v. Super. Ct.