Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: 2/1 DCA Agrees With Other Divisions Of The Second District That A CCP § 128.7 Unfiled Sanctions Motion Must Have A Motion Hearing Date To Be Valid

Cases: Sanctions

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 In Max v. 8E6 Corp., Case No. B344025 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/1 DCA agreed with its sister divisions in Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank, 179 Cal.App.4th 535,

Sanctions: Orange County Superior Court’s Appellate Division Publishes Order Sanctioning Defendant’s Attorneys For Filing Briefs With AI Hallucinations

Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: D.C. Circuit Sanctions An Appellee In A Federal Appeal By Striking Its Responding Brief For Containing AI Hallucinations

Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: First District Parts Company From The Second District On Whether A Safe Harbor Sanctions Motion Has To Have A Hearing Date

Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: Where Ex-Attorneys Failed To Dismiss A Case As Promised, Sanctions Were Appropriate Where The Case Was Not Dismissed During The Safe Harbor Period Or Even By The Date Of The Sanctions Hearing

Cases: Sanctions

$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 Ghermezian v. Ruiz, Case No. B345272 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 24, 2026) (unpublished) involved a dispute between ex-attorneys against the ex-client and the subsequent attorneys over settlement fund dispersal after a settlement was obtained by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

Arbitration, Sanctions: $1,822.50 Sanction Issued By Arbitrator Without Notices Is Stricken From Confirmed Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

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

Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: $7,870.41 Discovery Sanctions Affirmed On Appeal For Failure To Produce Metadata For A Crucial Meeting Summary Which Was The Bases For An Employee’s Termination

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Ethics, Sanctions: In Pro Per Litigant Not Automatically Disqualified As Far As Seeking $1,000 In Monetary Sanctions From Defense For Failing To Produce Document Responses Under CCP § 2023.050

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions

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

Lodestar, Sanctions: CCP § 128.5 Sanctions, With A Small Reduction, Were Affirmed Against The Defense Where A Mistrial Motion Was Granted Based On Violating The Parties’ Trial Stipulation On An Evidentiary Issue

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Sanctions

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

POOF!, Sanctions: Lower Court’s Dismissal Of Case For Late Filing Of Joint Pretrial Documents Under LASC Local Rule Reversed As Disproportionate

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

$84,600 In Attorney’s Fees Went POOF! With The Merits Reversal. In Meinhardt v. Sunny Acre LLC,Case No. B343467 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 23, 2026) (unpublished), the 2/5 DCA reversed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ case and imposition of an $84,600 attorney’s fees award where plaintiffs tardily filed joint pretrial disclosures the day before

Scroll to Top