Second District, Division 8 Gives a “Double Whammy.” In line with suggestions we have made in prior posts, appellate practice in California is a specialty. Do not get involved and do not lightly appeal abuse of discretion rulings unless you consult an appellate specialist or have practiced before the California appellate courts. The next […]
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Winning Litigant Properly Allocated Fees. In Bohl v. Pryke, Case No. E045405 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 1, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant in a “reporter’s shield law” case refused to reveal sources. However, he also apparently refused to answer legitimate discovery, drawing the lower court’s ire. The trial court
Sixth District Vacates $730,466.10 Default Judgment and Reinstates Defendant’s Answer. The next case is a good example of the POOF! principle. Plaintiff obtained a $730,466.10 default judgment against defendant, set up by the trial court’s grant of terminating sanctions for failure to respond to discovery requests. The only problem is that the record did
Second District, Division 3 Calls Into Question Whether Defense Needs to Answer Some Personal Injury Questions in Many Cases. Discovery is the bane of most litigators’ existence. It is freely allowed (subject to certain limitations)—vacillating from tedious and time consuming (at one pole) to burdensome and extremely expensive (at the other side of the
Second District, Division Two Discusses Aggregation Appealability Rule and Litigant’s Discovery Obligations. The next case we discuss has an interesting discussion of the aggregation appealability rule (sanctions order must exceed $5,000) and a litigant’s discovery obligations (even an alter ego defendant must provide discovery information of which he is aware, even if the defendant
Two Bills Enacted; One Vetoed Although a considerable segment of the state government's resources was consumed with general budgetary wrangling, two bills were enacted (effective January 1, 2009) and one bill vetoed with features involving attorney's fees/cost awards.
Second District, Division Three Decides Sanctions Unwarranted Because The Underlying Conduct Was Not Egregious in Nature. In New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (Shanahan), Case No. B207661 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 10, 2008) (certified for publication), the Court of Appeal—in a 3-0 opinion authored by Presiding Justice Croskey—issued mandate to allow withdrawal and
Second District, Division One Finds No Abuse of Discretion In Denying Further Sanctions. In our October 14, 2008 post, we reviewed The Capital Gold Group v. Michael Thomas Media Group, a Second District, Division 5 decisions reversing a sanctions award because the notice of motion for sanctions failed to identify the object of
Second District, Division Five Reverses Discovery Sanctions Imposed Against Client and Its Law Firm. The next case is a good reminder that discovery sanctions motions need to be explicit in mentioning the persons against whom the sanctions are directed in the actual motion. Failure to be precise in this context may mean that an
Court of Appeal Sustains Reductions by Trial Court and Suggests That Fees Expended by the Opposition Has Probative Value in Fee Proceedings. In Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (Horsford I), 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 402 (2005), the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined a trial court had applied
