Appellant’s Counsel Assessed With Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Of $30,000
Morales v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A170154 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2025) (published) highlights a lesson for all practitioners: sometimes it is better not to appeal non-appealable orders and not to challenge discovery rulings, which are by and large discretionary in nature.
This case involved a plaintiff suing City for personal injuries, resulting from riding a scooter which hit a pothole. Plaintiff alleged $5 million in damages. In response to defense discovery, plaintiff stonewalled on providing responses on whether he was intoxicated, although eventually answering but only after City brought a motion to compel. The lower court imposed sanctions on plaintiff of $6,500. Plaintiff also interfered with the defense’s independent medical exam, resulting in separate sanctions of $1,500. Plaintiff appealed these rulings, as well as a third order deny sanctions for a defense protective order motion.
The appellate court affirmed across the board. The $6,500 sanctions order was no abuse of discretion. The $1,500 sanctions order was non-appealable because it did not exceed the appeal threshold. The appeal of the protective order motion, denial of sanctions order, also was non-appealable.
Although the defense requested over $191,000 in sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal, the appellate court assessed only $30,000 against plaintiff’s counsel on this issue.
This shows why litigant’s counsel need to seriously weigh the pros and cons of taking appeals where non-appealable orders and where discretionary orders are involved.