Appeal Involved Review Of A CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Order Below. In Dunn Investment Properties, Inc. v. Johnson, Case Nos. B339562 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 26, 2026) (unpublished), a lower court sanctioned a party’s law firm and one of its attorneys under CCP § 128.7 to the tune of $11,725 for bringing […]
His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive. However, they are not a general
No Huge Dispute, But Appellate Court Only Awarded Sanctions For Direct Expenses Relating To the FSC Violation. Steele v. Paulee Body Shop, Inc., Case No. B344258 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished) shows how a sanctions request needs to be calibrated to expenses incurred on the actual violation, not ancillary expenses which are
Various Challenges, Including Fee Substantiation Challenges, Rejected On Appeal. In Malinowski v. Martin, Case No. A167576 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2025) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a $25,000 discovery sanctions award in favor of ex-husband, who predominantly won by having not to respond to about 90% of ex-wife’s discovery requests. Her principal challenges
Sanctions Properly Imposed When Raised By Opposing Side In Responsive Papers To Frivolous Motion Under 128.5(c), And Safe Harbor Provision Was Inapplicable. In RH Properties v. McBeth, Case No. B334051 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 21, 2025) (unpublished), unique circumstances were involved: plaintiff obtained appointment of a property receiver, with the other side filing a
Defendant Lacked Standing For The Initial Fee Motion It Brought – Nullifying The Order Granting The Motion And Each Subsequent Order Based On Plaintiff’s Failure To Comply With Void Initial Fee Order After being fired by Plaintiff trustee, Defendant law firm successfully brought a motion for fees under Probate Code § 17200. When trustee failed
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 In Springs v. SBM Site Services, Case No. G063924 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2025) (unpublished), the trial court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration because
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
They Did Not Exceed The $5,000 Threshold Under CCP § 904.1(a)(12), And They Cannot Be Aggregated With Prior Sanctions To Reach The Appealable Threshold. Lin v. Chao, Case No. H052699 (6th Dist. Oct. 16, 2025) (unpublished) found that an appeal of a Family Code section 271 sanctions award of $5,000 was not appealable under CCP
Sanctions Against Counsel Before They Appeared In The Action Had To Be Carved Out. Alanic International Corp. v. Wilson Trial Group, Case No. B334512 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good refresher for litigants and their counsel to remember that as litigation progresses and there are admissions that there are
