Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Appeal Sanctions:  $6,000 In Appeal Sanctions Payable To The Appeals Court Clerk Was The Order For Filing A Frivolous Appeal Based On Directly Contradicting A Different Position Taken Before The Trial Court

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

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. […]

Appeal Sanctions: Attorney Guilty Of Using AI Hallucinations Had His AOB Stricken, Was Sanctioned $7,500 Payable To The Appeals Court, And Allowed To File A New, Corrected AOB Within 10 Days

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

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

Appeal Sanctions:  AI Errors Continue To Generate Appellate Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

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

Appeal Sanctions:  Sanctions Request Remanded, Not Being The Appeal Was Totally Without Merit, But Because Appellant Violated California Rules Of Court

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

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

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: $68,238.62 Fee Award To Defense Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

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 In G.W. v. Coronado Unified School District, Case No. D083991 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs lost a SLAPP motion which eviscerated their Complaint.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 Sanctions: $10,000 In Sanctions Payable To Appellate Court Assessed Against Appellant’s Counsel For Filing Briefs Riddled With AI Hallucinations

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

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.

Appeal Sanctions, Discovery: Denial Of Discovery Sanctions Was Nonappealable, $1,500 Discovery Sanctions Was Nonappealable, And $6,500 Discovery Sanctions Was No Abuse Of Discretion

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery

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

Appeal Sanctions, Costs, Family Law: Although Prevailing Party On Appeal Entitled To Costs, There Was No Bases For Appeal Attorney’s Fees Or Appellate Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Family Law

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

Appeal Sanctions, Arbitration, Sanctions: $37,000 In CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Affirmed On Appeal For Attorney’s Refusal To Withdraw A Frivolous Opposition To An Arbitration Motion To Confirm An Award

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Also, Appeal Sanctions Were Warranted For A Frivolous Appeal, But Matter Remanded To Trial Judge To Determine Appropriate Amount Given Conclusory Support For The Fee Request.                In Plantation at Hayward I, LLC v. Plantation at Hayward I, LLC (Catanzarite), Case No. G062909 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2025) (published), plaintiff’s attorney losing in

Appeal Sanctions: $8,500 To Appellate Clerk Was Appeal Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Lower Court Will Determine Amount To Prevailing SLAPP Litigant On Appeal.                Just to show you how appeal sanctions are increasing, the appellate court in NBoordhof v. Armstrong, Case No. B331078 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 14, 2024) (unpublished) determined that a frivolous appeal should result in the punished litigant paying $8,500 to the appellate

Scroll to Top