Cases: Appeal Sanctions

Appeal Sanctions, Private Attorney General: 4/1 DCA Denies Requests For Appeal Sanctions And Private Attorney General Fees To Derivative Action Plaintiffs That Were Successful In Proving Former President/CEO’s Breach Of Fiduciary Duty

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Although Unsuccessful, Former President/CEO’s Arguments On Appeal Were Not Objectively Without Merit So As To Rise To The Level Of Frivolity Justifying Sanctions, And Plaintiffs Forfeited Their Claim To § 1021.5 Private Attorney General Fees By Not Making It Before The Trial Court.             In A&B Market Plus, Inc. v. Arabo, Case No. D073850 […]

Appeal Sanctions, Civil Rights: 2/5 DCA Imposes Sanctions Against County Of Los Angeles For Frivolous Appeal Of Trial Court’s FEHA Fee Denial Based On Finding That Former Employee Plaintiff’s Claims Were Not Frivolous, Vexatious Or Unreasonable

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Civil Rights

Although The 2/5 DCA Initially Considered Imposing $8,500 Against County, It Ultimately Reduced The Appeal Sanctions To $900 Based On Contrition Shown By County’s Counsel.             In Sepah v. County of L.A. Dept. of Mental Health, Case No. B297642 (2d Dist., Div. 5 March 25, 2021) (unpublished), former employee sued the County of Los Angeles,

Appeal Sanctions, Appealability: Plaintiff’s Appeal Of Trial Court’s Order Vacating A Default Against Defendant Dismissed, But Defendant’s Request For Appeal Sanctions Of $5,530 For Frivolous Appeal Denied

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Appealability

Self-Represented Plaintiff’s Appeal Of A Nonappealable Order Did Not Rise To The Strict Standard For Imposing Sanctions             In Barker v. Di Lando, Case No. A159556 (1st Dist., Div. 2 November 23, 2020) (unpublished), the 1/2 DCA dismissed an appeal filed by a self-represented plaintiff seeking reversal of the trial court’s order vacating default

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: In Pro Per Defendants’ SLAPP Motion Was Frivolous, Entitling Plaintiff To $9,900 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Denied, But Plaintiff Was Entitled To Appellate Fees For Prevailing On The SLAPP Denial.             Sometimes, there is more than one way to “skin a cat” as the proverbial saying goes.  That is what happened in Martin v. Smith, Case No. A157129 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 26, 2020) (unpublished).             There,

Appeal Sanctions, Appealability: 4/3 DCA Imposes $25,452 In Sanctions Against Counsel For Nonparty Group Of Church Congregation Members Who Appealed Trial Court’s Ruling On Their Motion For Protective Order

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Appealability

Nonparty Group’s Motion For Protective Order Was Actually A Nonappealable Motion For Reconsideration Of A Discovery Ruling, But 4/3 DCA Treated Appeal As A Writ Petition To Stop The Harm Caused By Delaying Litigation In This Case.             In Roe 1 v. Doe 2, Case No. G057684 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2020)

Appeal Sanctions, SLAPP: $21,870.09 In Appellate SLAPP Fees Affirmed Where Prevailing Defendant Obtained Dismissal Of A SLAPP Merits Appeal For Being Untimely

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Appellate Court Also Sanctioned Appellant’s Attorney For Relying On Unpublished DCA Opinions.             Westreich v. Higa, Case No. B293726 (2d Dist., Div. 5 May 5, 2020) (unpublished) has two big warnings for attorneys arguing before California appellate courts:  make sure you have a reporter’s transcript in the appellate record when you are challenging the amount

Appeal Sanctions, Discovery: Discovery And Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Of $3,250 Against Father Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery

Also, Father Ordered To Pay Mother $2,980 For Prosecuting A Frivolous Appeal.             Father, in Rybolt v. Riley, Case No. C086056 (3d Dist. Mar. 24, 2020 (unpublished), appealed from a non-appealable vocational evaluation order and discovery/Family Code section 271 totaling $3,250 for bringing motions to compel which were denied/did not further legitimate purposes of the

Appeal Sanctions, Employment, Judgment Enforcement, Undertaking: Employer Fails In Multiple Attempts To Reduce Fee Award, CEO Is Properly Denied Fees Following Successful Alter Ego Challenge, And Attorney Sanctioned $7,765 For Meritless Challenge

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Employment, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Undertaking

The Fees Award Against Employer Had Been Affirmed By The Sixth District Three Years Prior, The CEO Could Not Prove Employee’s Alter Ego Claims Were Frivolous, But Employer’s Motion To Release Surety Bond So Frivolous It Warranted 6th District’s Issuance Of Sanctions On Its Own Motion.             We originally posted on Khanna v. Sonasoft

Scroll to Top