Second District, Division One Finds No Abuse of Discretion In Denying Further Sanctions.
In our October 14, 2008 post, we reviewed The Capital Gold Group v. Michael Thomas Media Group, a Second District, Division 5 decisions reversing a sanctions award because the notice of motion for sanctions failed to identify the object of the sanctions request. Now, the Second District, Division 1 has followed suit in a recent unpublished opinion.
Cody v. Hester, Case No. B200335, B200887, & B203737 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 30, 2008) (unpublished) concerned a party who won some discovery sanctions but appealed because greater sanctions were thought justified.
The Second District, Division One rebuffed the request for further sanctions on much the same ground as relied on by its sister division in The Capital Gold Group case. Appellant only sought sanctions in references at the conclusion of her memorandum of points and authorities, not in the notice of motion. This was deficient: “General citations to discovery statutes in the conclusion of her memorandum in support of her motion for sanctions was insufficient notice to justify her request for sanctions.” The appellate court also relied on Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 and 2023.040, which require that the sanctions request be precisely delineated in the notice of motion.