Cases: Sanctions

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 Ghermezian v. Ruiz, Case No. B345272 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 24, 2026) (unpublished) involved a dispute between ex-attorneys against the ex-client and the subsequent attorneys over settlement fund dispersal after a settlement was obtained by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 In Alharbi Brothers v. Corona Town Farmers Market, Case No. D086595 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 18, 2026) (unpublished), an arbitrator issued a substantial $1.35 million-plus arbitration award against a losing party (inclusive a fee award) and an additional $1,822.50 sanctions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 The lower court in Romero v. Gopher Media LLC, Case No. D086508 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished) imposed $7,870.41 in discovery sanctions on defendants for failing to produce a crucial meeting summary used to justify plaintiff’s employment termination in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

Sanctions: Mississippi District Court Decision Not Only Imposes Monetary Sanctions But Disqualifies Attorneys From The Case And Mandates Reporting To State Bars For Using AI Hallucinations In Court Filings

Cases: Sanctions

FRCP 11 Was The Source Of The Sanctions, With Monetary Sanctions Depending On Whether The Conduct Was In Bad Faith Or Merely Careless. We have blogged on numerous California appellate opinions sanctioning attorneys for utilizing AI when it produced hallucinations for which opposing parties or the appellate courts must parse through, eventually discovering that the

Sanctions: Total Sanctions Of $6,000 Under CCP § 128.7, $5,000 To The Primary Defendant And $1,000 To The Lower Court, Was No Abuse Of Discretion Given Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Being Unable To Explain Why They Opposed A Stay Motion And Given Delegation To A Contract Attorney Who Cited To Non-Existent Cases, Hallucinations, And Citations Which Did Not Exist In Cases Relied On In The Stay Opposition

Cases: Sanctions

Attorneys’ Safe Harbor/Technical § 128.7 Arguments Were Forfeited Because They Were Not Raised Before The Lower Court—Not To Mention Attorneys Could Have Withdrawn Their Stay Opposition. Bad facts generally lead to losing appeals, and possibly more repercussions.  Here, both the lower and appellate courts found that lead attorneys in two overlapping class actions had incredulous

In The News, Sanctions: Prominent L.A. Firm Sanctioned Almost $3 Million For Not Being Candid With A District Judge Or Opponent On Expert Discovery Issues

Cases: Sanctions, In The News

Some Of The Sanctions Were Apportioned Separately Against Supervising Partners And Mid-Level Associates, With Some Of The Attorneys Having To Submit To Ethical Curriculum Requirements—In A Word, Partners, Prudently Supervise Your Associates! Although we do not want to mention names (because it out there in the public media anyway), District Judge Chen of the Northern

Scroll to Top