In Sino Century Development Ltd. v. Farley, Case No B236912 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 3, 2012) (published), a trial judge imposed $81,461.13 in sanctions upon a defendant and his counsel under California Rule of Court 2.30, which authorizes “reasonable monetary sanctions” to be awarded to a party by a person failing without good cause to comply with rules of court (subdivision (b)) and authorizes “reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions” to be imposed against the person losing the sanctions proceeding (subdivision (d)).
On appeal, the sanctions award was reversed and remanded for a proper refix by the trial judge.
The basis for the sanctions was the failure to notify the trial judge about an automatic bankruptcy stay with respect to one of the defendants. However, based on the structure of CRC 2.30, fees were not authorized as sanctions for violation of court rules under subdivision (a), given that subdivision (d) only authorizes fees to those incurred in the actual sanctions proceedings involved in seeking redress for court rule violations. Because the trial judge awarded fees for more, a remand was necessary to circumspectly limit fees to the sanctions proceedings alone.
Nonetheless, the appellate court did sustain rule 2.30 as a proper exercise of Judicial Council rule making authority, rebuffing appellants’ challenge to the contrary.
To let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime . . .