Cases: Appealability

Appealability, Discovery: Monetary Sanctions, Not Intertwined With Nonappealable Issue Sanctions Order, Can Be Entertained On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery

$37,575 Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants For Discovery Noncompliance Affirmed, Given Defense Conduct.             Bad facts can lead to published decisions which are not complementary to a party not conducting itself appropriately in litigation.  Defendants in Deck v. Developers Investment Co., Case No. G061287 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 24, 2023) (published) learned that sad reality. […]

Appealability, Discovery: Discovery Sanctions Against Client’s Attorney For Client’s Failure To Appear At A Deposition Reversed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery

Nothing In The Statute Shows That Sanctions Are Allowable Against Client’s Attorney.             Castillo v. McCreary, Case No. B317493 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision on an appealability issue and on whether discovery sanctions can be visited on a client’s attorney for his client’s failure to appear for

Appealability, Deadlines: Plaintiff’s Appeal Of An Attorney’s Fee Grant Motion Was Untimely, Resulting In A $64,350.30 Fees Order Standing As Viable Without Any Review

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines

Appeal Was Electronically Received By The Court One Minute Late, Which Made It Untimely—So, Allow For Some Electronic Delay Transmission Issues When Filing An Appeal.             Although unpublished, the lesson from McKenna v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Case Nos. B304256/B310814 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 15, 2023) (unpublished) is to not push the 11:59 p.m. electronic

Appealability, Civil Rights: Disabled Plaintiff Suing Defendant For Website Violations Under The Unruh Act Was Properly Assessed With Defense Attorney’s Fees Of $45,419.50 After Voluntarily Dismissing His Action

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiff’s Injunctive Relief Allegations Triggered Civil Code Section 55, Which Allowed Fees To The Defense—Allegations Matter In These Cases.             Sandoval v. Nippon Life Ins. Co. of America, Case No. E077245 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 12, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting disabled person website case which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after some discovery. 

Appealability, Family Law: Failure To Independently Appeal Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Motion Meant The Merits Could Not Be Reviewed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

$25,000 Sanctions Order Was Not Subject To Review.             In Marriage of Freeman, Case No. B311411 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 6, 2022) (unpublished; opinion after rehearing), ex-wife was peeved she was assessed with Family Code section 2071 sanctions to the tune of $25,000.  However, her challenges could not be entertained because she did not

Appealability, SLAPP: 4/3 DCA Decides That Immediate Appeal Of SLAPP Fee Award Is Not Cognizable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

Appellate Court Sides With One Side In “Irreconcilable Conclusions” On The Appealability Issue.                  In Ibbetson v. Grant, Case No. G060473 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court was faced with the question of whether an anti-SLAPP fee award was immediately appealable after a prior SLAPP order grant or whether it

Appealability, Sanctions: $2,000 Sanctions Order Against Attorney For Filing A Second Amended Cross-Claims With New Claims Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

Prior Dismissal Of A Premature Appeal Did Not Retard Consideration Of This Appeal, Plus Be Careful To Observe Memorandum Page Limits!             Bush v. Cardinale, Case No. A158757 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 27, 2022; posted on Sept. 28, 2022) (unpublished) involved an appeal of a $2,000 CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against an attorney

Appealability, Discovery: Plaintiff “Internet Troll” In California Discovery Litigation, Whose Motion To Quash Was Dismissed, Was Not Entitled To Attorney Fees Under CCP § 1987.2(c)

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery

Appellate Court Also Rebukes Parties And Attorneys Whose Main Quest Is To Recoup Fees After A Defeat.             Here is how Doe v. McLaughlin, Case No. A161534 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 21, 2022) (published) began:             “Forty-four years ago our Supreme Court admonished that ‘The purpose of litigation is to resolve participants’ disputes,

Appealability, SLAPP: Even Through Cross-Claims Were Dismissed During Pendency Of An Appeal, SLAPP Denial Appeal Was Not Moot

Cases: Appealability, Cases: SLAPP

The Reason Is That Attorney’s Fees Were In Play If The SLAPP Denial Was Reversed, As It Was.             Watkins v. D’Orio, Case No. B310902 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 14, 2022) (unpublished) involved a situation where cross-defendant appealed the denial of an anti-SLAPP as to certain cross-claims and, during the pendency of the appeal,

Appealability, Special Fee Shifting Statute: Despite No Real Opposition To Civil Harassment Restraining Order Fee Motion, Reversal Of Damages Award Means Fee Award Had To Be Revisited

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Appellate Court Agreed That No Opposition To Fees Would Normally Be Dispositive, But Reversal In Eliminating Damages Changed The Landscape.             Hao v. Wang, Case o. B306737 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 12, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting case in showing how even a litigant not opposing a fees motion may still get a remand

Scroll to Top