Also, Respondents Can Get OSC Response Fees And Costs On The Issue. All practitioners should get attuned to the fact that appellate courts are imposing sanctions more frequently for CRC infractions, including referencing AI hallucinations and filing false paperwork. In Horton v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. D085379 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, […]
$59,236 Payable To Respondent; $15,000 Payable To Appellate Clerk In Howell Management Services, LLC v. Rota, Case No. D086055 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 15, 2025) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA recently found appellant filed a frivolous appeal involving three orders, with AI hallucinations also found in the appellant’s appellate briefing (an unreasonable CRC violation). The
Sanctions Denied To Respondent; However, Appellate Court Directed That The Lower Court Award Full Appellate Fees On Remand, As Long As They Are Reasonable. Orange County Superior Court Judge Bancroft, sitting by assignment, has authored a couple of decisions on sanctions, the latest being Meena v. Schroeder, Case No. G063849 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec.
Dismissal Of The Appeal For This Transgression Was Too Harsh. We have previously blogged on Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal.App.5th 426, 445 and Schlichter v. Kennedy, Case No. E083744 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 17, 2025 (also aligned with People v. Alvarez, 114 Cal.App.5th 1115), where appellate courts sanctioned attorneys for
Trending In California Appellate Cases … Check Reliance On AI Research. There are studies and other empirical feedback which show attorneys are increasingly relying on AI research and feedback for case analysis. That is fine, but the message from various courts throughout the nation (which you can access over the Internet) and California appellate cases
That Led to A Remand, Because Appellant Did So. This appeal sanctions case has a twist. Even though finding that the appeal was not totally without merit, the 4/3 DCA—in a 3-0 opinion authored by Orange County Superior Court Judge Bancroft (sitting by assignment)—did believe a remand was in order because appellant violated numerous California
Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel Sanctioned $13,000 For Bringing A Frivolous Appeal, Payable To The Appellate Court. In G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District, Case No. D083991 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a SLAPP motion which eviscerated their Complaint. The defense then was awarded $68,238.62 in mandatory SLAPP fees, the full request,
Appeal Court Had Authority To Sanction For This Behavior. We now have the first California published appellate opinion disclosing the perils of using AI for preparing briefs and the consequences when fabricated authority is cited to the appellate court. In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., Case No. B331918 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept.
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
Sanctions Award Under Family Code Section 271 Was Defective Because Prevailing Party Failed To Give Notice Of Seeking This Relief. In Marriage of Terry, Case No. B334907 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 21, 2025) (unpublished), a prevailing party on appeal was awarded three components by the lower court: (1) routine costs; (2) $23,587.20 in
