Cases: Sanctions

Discovery, Sanctions: Although Spoliation Issues Sanction Order Was Reversed, $16,000 Discovery Monetary Sanctions Were Proper Based On Motion Compelling Further Discovery Responses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Although Spoliation and Motion To Compel Issues Were Inextricably Intertwined, Motion To Compel Ruling Supported The Sanctions Award Where The Claimed Expenses Were Not Allocated To Any Specific Relief. In Glickman v. Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, Case No. G065111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 13, 2026) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana Court, in a 3-0 […]

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess

Probate, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7(b)(1) Sanctions Affirmed Against A Probate Litigant Filing A New Contesting Petition For An Improper Purpose

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In Gerald C. Fox Foundation v. Fox, Case No. H053043 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), CCP § 128.7(b)(1) sanctions were imposed against a trustee who filed a new trust petition

Sanctions: First District Court Of Appeal Publishes Opinion Informing In Pro Per Litigants That They Cannot Use And Are Subject For Sanctions When Relying On AI Hallucinations

Cases: Sanctions

This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 19, 2026) (partially published; AI discussion published), the appellate court made clear that the recent California case authority which prohibits AI hallucinations equally applies to in

Family Law, Sanctions: Family Law Section 271 Sanctions Of $35,000 Reversed Against Ex-Husband Because . . . .

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: Sanctions For Missing A Final Status Conference Were Appropriate, But Had To Be Reduced For Calibration To The Actual Expenses For the Missed FSC

Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Sanctions: $25,000 In Discovery Sanctions Against Ex-Wife, Based On Ex-Husband’s Success In Not Having To Answer 90% Of Certain Requests, Were Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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: CCP § 128.5(c) Sanctions Properly Imposed For Denied Frivolous Sanctions Motion Where Challenged Motion Could Not Have Been Withdrawn And Unsuccessful Moving Party Had Ample Time To Withdraw Sanctions Motion Way Before The Hearing

Cases: Sanctions

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

Appealability, Probate, Sanctions: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Attorney Fee and Sanctions Orders, But The 2/1 DCA Reversed Them On Appeal When Plaintiff Appealed Trial Court’s Denial Of His Motion To Vacate

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top