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 v. Wilson Trial Group, Case No. B334512 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good refresher for litigants and their counsel to remember that as litigation progresses and there are admissions that there are […]
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 §§
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
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 In Estate of Miller, Case No. G064476 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 6, 2025) (unpublished), the underlying matter involved a dispute between two siblings over
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 In Junkers2Jewels, LLC v. McClaney, Case No. B339900 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 28, 2025) (unpublished), which was factually dependent, the appellate panel affirmed a
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 Wright v. Wright, Case No. B327043 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 23, 2025) (unpublished) is a good reminder that a CCP § 128.7 filed motion must clearly articulate the grounds for sanctions and rebut the grounds in the targeted underlying motions
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well, there was one considered by the 4/1 DCA in Razuki v. Malan, Case No. D082560 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 20, 2025) (unpublished).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
Appellate Court Agreed That Plaintiff Did Not Have An Opportunity To Comply With CCP § 128.5 Safe Harbor Sanctions Provision, But Indicated It Should Be Followed Absent Exceptional Circumstances. In Chang v. Brooks, Case Nos. B320278 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 14, 2025) (unpublished), defendant’s SLAPP motion was determined to be properly
4/3 DCA Dismissed The Appeal As The Trial Court’s Interlocutory Order On The Discovery Referee Fees Was Not A Sanctions Order, Did Not Use The Word Sanctions, And Did Not Cite Authority To Impose Sanctions. The parties in Glickman v. Krolikowski, Case No. G064853 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 7, 2025) (published), stipulated to
Also, Appeal Sanctions Were Warranted For A Frivolous Appeal, But Matter Remanded To Trial Judge To Determine Appropriate Amount Given Conclusory Support For The Fee Request. In Plantation at Hayward I, LLC v. Plantation at Hayward I, LLC (Catanzarite), Case No. G062909 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2025) (published), plaintiff’s attorney losing in
