Cases: Sanctions

Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court Correctly Determined That Employer Breached Parties’ Arbitration Agreement By Failing To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Where Employer Argued 30-Day Deadline Was Never Triggered Because Employer’s Counsel, Not Employer, Was Served With The Arbitration Invoice

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Sanctions

However, The 4/3 DCA Reversed And Remanded For The Trial Court’s Determination As To Whether Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Should Be Excused Pursuant To Hohenshelt. In Springs v. SBM Site Services, Case No. G063924 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2025) (unpublished), the trial court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration because […]

Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court’s Grant Of 1281.98 Motion To Return Case To Court When Employer Failed To Pay Arbitration Fees Within 30 Days And Award Of Related Monetary Sanctions Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Sanctions

Section 1281.98 Was Inapplicable Because The Arbitration Agreement Was Governed By The Provisions Of The Federal Arbitration Act. In Howitson v. Evans Hotels, Case No. D085078 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 20, 2025) (unpublished), defendant employer failed to pay an arbitration retainer within 30 days, leading Plaintiff to successfully move under CCP section 1281.98 of

Arbitration, Sanctions: $183,304 In Sanctions Relating To Abandoned Arbitration Proceeding Awarded Against Employer Not Timely Paying Arbitration Expenses Under CCP § 1281.98(c)(1)

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions Are Awardable Where Fees Were Expended In Terminated Arbitration Proceedings.                In an area where there has been a lot of litigation, an employer faces litigating in court and paying sanctions to an employee in a situation where employee wants to arbitrate but employer fails to adhere to the payment deadlines in CCP §§

Sanctions, SLAPP: Plaintiff Losing A SLAPP Motion On A Cross-Complaint Was Properly Not Granted 128.7 Sanctions For A Mistaken Payment Statement

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Cross-Complainants Did Fess Up To The Problem, With The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Sanctions Hearing Further Showing No Abuse Of Discretion In The Denial Of The Sanctions Request.                Although we take the cases as we find them for posting purposes, the next one was a dispute over an apparent snafu in

Sanctions: Sanctions Orders Against Probate Sibling’s Former Attorney Relating To Change Of Venue Motion Both Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

128.5 Sanctions Motion Did Not Comply With Procedural Prerequisites, While Her Status As Former Counsel Did Not Give Proper Opportunity To Contest The Fees Awarded Under CCP § 396b.                In Estate of Miller, Case No. G064476 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 6, 2025) (unpublished), the underlying matter involved a dispute between two siblings over

Sanctions: Where Party Filed A CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Motion Without Safe Harbor Compliance, Lower Court Correctly Denied The Motion

Cases: Sanctions

Even Though There Was No Time To Give The Safe Harbor Notice, Party Seeking Sanctions Needed To Ask For A Continuance Of The Motion Which Was Target Of Sanctions.                In Junkers2Jewels, LLC v. McClaney, Case No. B339900 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2025) (unpublished), which was factually dependent, the appellate panel affirmed a

Sanctions: Opposing Party’s Failure To Adequately Explain Bases For Sanction Motion And To Not Rebut All The Grounds In The Target Set-Aside Motion Resulted In Reversal

Cases: Sanctions

Reversal Was As A Matter Of Law, Based Primarily On Due Process Grounds.                Wright v. Wright, Case No. B327043 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good reminder that a CCP § 128.7 filed motion must clearly articulate the grounds for sanctions and rebut the grounds in the targeted underlying motions

Sanctions: $200,000 CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Award Reversed Because It Was Not Causally Tethered To the Criminal Kidnapping Conduct At Issue

Cases: Sanctions

A Remand Was Ordered On The Civil Component And A Possible Penalty Payable To The Court.                Talk about interesting issues; well, there was one considered by the 4/1 DCA in Razuki v. Malan, Case No. D082560 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished).                There, plaintiff was assessed with a $200,000 sanctions award

Scroll to Top