Appeal Labeled “Insulting” by Appellate Court. In Kempton v. Prudential California Realty, Case No. B2311633 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 16, 2011) (unpublished), appellant appealed a costs award but made a blatantly false argument to the court, namely, that the trial court did not have a costs memorandum before it in ruling on […]
Frivolous Appeal No Laughing Matter. Marriage of Shannahan, Case No. D058220 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 10, 2011) (unpublished) is not blog-worthy for its ultimate result of affirming a $20,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against husband. However, it is worthy for establishing the “going rate” for frivolous appeal sanctions to the clerk
Appellate Court Gives Us Updated Figures on Costs for Processing Appeal That Goes to Opinion. This one will be of interest to general readers and appellate practitioners, a diverse audience but one that should pay attention nonetheless. In Marriage of Peng and Hsieh, Case No. B221318 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 12,
Appeal Deemed Frivolous, With Reminding Words of Wisdom to Those Choosing to Appeal. Justice Yegan of the Second District, Division 6 on behalf of a 3-0 panel, has penned a decision with some sobering reminders on the nuances of appellate practice, and is likely going to be quoted down the line. In
Appellate Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal Denied For Lack of Separate Motion and More. In Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., Case No. 10-35388 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2011) (for publication), the district court determined that a litigant had acted in bad faith so that $78,109.95 in attorney’s feees and costs should be assessed against him
Defendant Was Victor Both Below and On Appeal. In our March 25, 2009 post, we explored Krug v. Maschmeier, 172 Cal.App.4th 796 (2009), which held that a winning defendant in a civil harassment proceeding could be awarded attorney’s fees in the discretion of the lower court. Now, an appellate decision has applied this
First District, Division 5 Provides Updated Information on Compensating Aggrieved Litigants As Well As Appellate Courts for Frivolous Appeals. The companion cases of Peirona v. TMT Associates, LLC, Case No. A126790 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 17, 2010) (unpublished) and Peirona v. Nguyen, Case No. A126551 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 17, 2010) (unpublished)
Second District, Division 2 Affirms And Awards $5,000 For a Frivolous Appeal. In our category “Requests for Admissions,” we have discussed numerous cases examining the “costs of proof” sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420 for litigants that unreasonably deny RFAs for matters later proven true at trial. (The most potent sanction is
Requested Sanctions of $14,623.91 Are Pared Down to $6,750. In Girardi v. Princess Cruises, Case No. B217192 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 24, 2010) (unpublished), appellants were found to have prosecuted a frivolous appeal based on the standards set forth in the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637,
First District, Division 5, Except for a $49 Adjustment, Tells Everyone to Go Home But For a Minor $1,000 Appellate Sanctions. Salvio Street, LLC v. Lee, Case Nos. A122408/A123080 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 29, 2010) (unpublished) is an interesting case, not just for the legal issues, but because it demonstrates how pragmatic appellate
