Side Defending Against Frivolous Appeal Is Awarded $25,000. Gildelatorre v. Bay Vista Methodist Heights, Case No. D063616 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 17, 2014) (unpublished) is a situation where an appellate court did not like the cagey emails or post-trial tactics of an appealing party where a judgment was basically satisfied along the […]
Husband’s Appeal Was Frivolous, With Lower Court To Determine Fees On Remand. Marriage of S., Case No. G047517 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where an ex-husband unsuccessfully appealed a family judge order that each side bears his/her own fees/costs. The record certainly supported the denial on a
If you are tracking the costs of a frivolous appeal, the recent opinion in Estate of Schooler, Case No. D062217 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 15, 2013) (unpublished) might help you. There, the reviewing court imposed these sanctions for a frivolous appeal: (1) $10,725 in favor of one set of respondents; (2) $8,760
Two Appeals Demonstrate How Overall Equities Factor Into Appellate Sanctions Decisionmaking Process. Here are two interesting appeals by a sanctioned client and attorney from lower court decisions, with appellate sanctions being sought by the respondents on appeal. The results are interesting and decided by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth on behalf of identical 3-0
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 In City of Santa Rosa v. Villages at Wild Oak Assn., Case No. A134107 (lst Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 28, 2013) (unpublished), City appealed the denial of its SLAPP motion.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 Wong v. Genser, Case No. A133837 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 30, 2012) (unpublished) is not only a lesson in tenacity, but also shows how an appealing party must be candid with the appellate tribunal–under penalty of harsh appellate sanctions.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
