The Reason Was That The Sanctions Order Was Made Payable To Defendants, Rather Than Properly To The Court. Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 does allow a court to sanction no more than $1,500 for a knowing violation of a court order, with the sanctions payable to the court. Cammas v. YMCA of the East
It Acknowledges A Contrary First District Decision, But Agrees With The Result Reached By Other Sister Divisions Of The Second District. In Max v. 8E6 Corp., Case No. B344025 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA agreed with its sister divisions in Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank, 179 Cal.App.4th 535,
End Of The Order Makes Clear That The Appellate Division Will Report Imposition Of Sanctions On This Issue To The California State Bar. In Southland Homes & Real Estate and Investment, LLC v. Lam, Case No. 30-2026-01569207 (Orange County Super. Ct., App. Div. modified opinion Aug. 5, 2026; posted Sept. 10, 2026) (published), Presiding Judge Kimberly
In A Per Curiam Published Order, Concurring Justice Touches On Some Other Issues In The Case. The D.C. Circuit federal appeals court has published a per curiam order in Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 2023-CAB-005422 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 3, 2026) where it sanctioned a firm representing an appellee (federal parlance for respondent, if
This May Go Up for California Supreme Court Review In Ari Law P.C. v. Autonation.com, Inc., Case No. A173620 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 26, 2026) (published), the First District parted company from two Second District decisions (Galleria, 179 Cal.App.4th 535 and J.N., 120 Cal.App.5th 544) in arriving at the conclusion that the CCP section 1010 notice requirements
$10,450 In Sanctions Under CCP Section 128.7 Were Imposed, Less Than The $37,000-Plus Request. Ghermezian v. Ruiz, Case No. B345272 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 24, 2026) (unpublished) involved a dispute between ex-attorneys against the ex-client and the subsequent attorneys over settlement fund dispersal after a settlement was obtained by the subsequent attorneys. As generally
However, The Remaining Part Of A Substantial Award Is Sustained. In Alharbi Brothers v. Corona Town Farmers Market, Case No. D086595 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 18, 2026) (unpublished), an arbitrator issued a substantial $1.35 million-plus arbitration award against a losing party (inclusive a fee award) and an additional $1,822.50 sanctions against the losing party
Defense’s Privilege Objections Found Unpersuasive, But A Request for Appeal Sanctions Was Denied. The lower court in Romero v. Gopher Media LLC, Case No. D086508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished) imposed $7,870.41 in discovery sanctions on defendants for failing to produce a crucial meeting summary used to justify plaintiff’s employment termination in
Litigant Did Not Need To Show Expenses Were Actually Incurred, Plus The Appellate Court Reminds Us That Civility Applies To Both Self-Represented And Represented Litigants. In Damak v. Superior Court, Case No. G065583 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2026) (published), a self-represented litigant (plaintiff) filed a motion to compel when the defense did not
The One Reduction Related To A Duplication Argument Not Supportable. In Rodriguez v. Paramount Convalescent Group, Inc., Case No. B344443 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 6, 2026) (unpublished), a trial court awarded $81,536.13 in attorney’s fees and costs under CCP § 128.5 against the defense and in favor of plaintiff where the defense violated the
