City Ignored or Misrepresented Controlling Authorities on Appeal. In City of Santa Rosa v. Villages at Wild Oak Assn., Case No. A134107 (lst Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 28, 2013) (unpublished), City appealed the denial of its SLAPP motion. Bad move. In its moving papers below, City ignored or misrepresented controlling authorities. The appellate […]
$20.055 SLAPP Fee/Costs Recovery Affirmed, Plus Appellants Get Hit With Appellate Sanctions Of Over $61,200 For Bringing Frivolous Appeal This next case reminds us that you need to give up after you or your client is on a losing string, especially once a couple of appeals tend to establish an adverse trend. Appealing
Civility Is Also Stressed in Decision. Wong v. Genser, Case No. A133837 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 30, 2012) (unpublished) is not only a lesson in tenacity, but also shows how an appealing party must be candid with the appellate tribunal–under penalty of harsh appellate sanctions. Also, the decision has some important words
Prevailing Parties Get Them, With No Frivolity Requirement Necessary, But In Pro Per Litigant Dodged Appeal Sanctions. Koresko v. De La Rosa, Case No. F064375 (5th Dist. Nov. 7, 2012) (unpublished) reinforces the fact that a prevailing party in routine civil litigation does receive routine costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b).
Appeal Sanctions Denied Because No Declaration Filed to Support Fee Request. Preserving claims for trial court error depends on raising the argument below and providing an adequate record to the appellate court. Violation of either principle likely means an appeal will be unsuccessful. Likewise, with respect to appeal sanctions, one must follow the
Cal. Rules of Court Do Contain the Proper Procedures in These Areas. Justice Yegan in Sandler v. San Wall Properties, Case No. B234643 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 31, 2012) (unpublished) does remind us of some procedural nuances on two subjects: (1) appeal sanctions; and (2) attorney’s fees on appeal. There, winning
Creative Argument Okay, But Better Not Base Appeal on Rejected/Sanctioned Argument In Another Case That Was Affirmed On Appeal. We can only guess that some practitioners believe that appellate courts will not thoroughly research a matter or miss something along the way. Not likely, as this next opinion shows. In this one,
Appellate Courts Are Not Messing Around With Frivolous Appeals. Cowabunga, appellate (surf) fans. This next one is bound to be quoted on the topic of frivolous appeals. Here are the beginning lines: “Some appeals are filed to delay the inevitable. This is such an appeal. It is frivolous and was ‘dead on arrival’
Two Recent Opinions Show the Trend. When appellate courts sanction someone for a frivolous appeal, we have noticed lately that the tally is going up even in fairly routine appeals. In Willis v. Page, Case No. B230638 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished), the winning party on appeal was awarded $20,000
Appellate Frivolous Sanctions Also Awarded Against Appellant/Her Counsel. Marriage of Wahl and Perkins, Case No. H035712 (6th Dist. Feb. 2, 2012) (certified for publication) is a situation where an ex-wife was ordered to pay $552,153.28 as a fee “sanctions” to ex-husband under Family Code section 271. (For any newbees or anyone who might
