Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Appeal Sanctions: $5,000 Frivolous Appeal Sanctions To Respondent Was Affirmed On Appeal, Payable By Appellant’s Counsel

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Part of Sanctions Awarded Was For AI Hallucinations In The ARB. The Fifth District, in Salgado v. Fred Palla Farms, Inc., Case No. F090398 (5th Dist. Nov. 6, 2026) (unpublished), ruled on a request for appellate sanctions by respondents for appellant’s filing of a frivolous appeal, including using fabricated AI citations in the appellant’s reply

Appeal Sanctions: What Is The Cost Where An Ex-Husband Unsuccessfully Challenged A Family Law Code Section 2030 Fee Shifting Order Where Attacks On The Trial Judge Were Over The Top?

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Answer:  $7,500 Payable To The Other Side, According To The 4/1 DCA. We do monitor appeal sanctions. Marriage of Ghazi and Richard, Case No. D086782 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 21, 2026) (unpublished) involved an ex-husband’s unsuccessful appeal of a fairly minor Family Code section 2030 fee-shifting award, which he incorrectly characterized as a section 271

Appeal Sanctions: In Pro Per Appellants Will Have To Pay The Reasonable Appellate Fees Of Their Opponent Based On AI Hallucination Citations

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Superior Court Judge Will Determine The Fees To Be Awarded. Pro per appellants are not immune from appellate sanctions for having used AI hallucinations citations in their AOB.  The penalty in Varma v. The Bank of New York Mellon, Case No. E085566 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2026) (unpublished) for in pro per appellants in this

Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: $7,870.41 Discovery Sanctions Affirmed On Appeal For Failure To Produce Metadata For A Crucial Meeting Summary Which Was The Bases For An Employee’s Termination

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Defense’s Privilege Objections Found Unpersuasive, But A Request for Appeal Sanctions Was Denied. The lower court in Romero v. Gopher Media LLC, Case No. D086508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished) imposed $7,870.41 in discovery sanctions on defendants for failing to produce a crucial meeting summary used to justify plaintiff’s employment termination in

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics: Appellants’ Counsel’s Disparaging The Trial Judge Of Being Biased, Without Any Support, Drew A $1,000 Contempt Sanction

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics

Plus The Opinion Had To Be Reported To The State Bar. A Company Hungary KFT v. Bespalov, Case No. B336640a (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 4, 2026) (published) is an opinion where an appellants’ counsel was assessed with a $1,000 contempt sanction for disparaging a trial judge, without evidence, in appellate briefing.  The panel found

Appeal Sanctions, Paralegal Time, Reasonableness Of Fees: Trial Court’s Refusal To Award Contractual Fees For Paralegal Work Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Paralegal Time, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Also, Attorney Fee’s Reductions Were Affirmed And Appellant Was Ordered to Pay Minimal Appeal Sanctions For AI Hallucinations In Appellate Briefing. The memorable thing about this opinion, Del Biaggio v. Bansen, Case No. A174647 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2026) (published), is what it determined in compensating paralegal work under a contractual fees clause

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

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

Scroll to Top