Appeal Of $72,476.87 Sanctions Award Against Ex-Husband Deemed Frivolous. Just to give you a sense of the dollar amounts of appellate sanctions imposed in one Division of the Second District, the Ventura Court of Appeal, in Marriage of Walther, Case No. B340131 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 20, 2026) (unpublished), found ex-husband’s appeal of a […]
In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess
Another Published Opinion In This Area—Be A Human, Read, Check, And Verify AI Research. In re the Domestic Partnership of Campos & Munoz, Case No. D085584 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 5, 2026) (published) is post-worthy because it builds on prior cases and imposed $5,000 in appeal sanctions, payable to the appellate clerk, for filing
Appeal Involved Review Of A CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Order Below. In Dunn Investment Properties, Inc. v. Johnson, Case Nos. B339562 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a lower court sanctioned a party’s law firm and one of its attorneys under CCP § 128.7 to the tune of $11,725 for bringing
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To Appellate Clerk In Howell Management Services, LLC v. Rota, Case No. D086055 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 15, 2025) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA recently found appellant filed a frivolous appeal involving three orders, with AI hallucinations also found in the appellant’s appellate briefing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
