Appellate Court Found Basis Existed For Sanctions, But Required Greater Clarity Especially Given That Bar Discipline Could Be At Issue. An attorney in American Express Bank FSB v. Singh (Abdeljawad), Case No. E074042 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 30, 2020) (unpublished) violated a court order to personally appear at a Fall 2019 hearing to […]
However, Litigant’s Attorneys Were Not Subject To Sanctions Because No Evidence Indicated The Attorneys Advised The Clients To Engage In The Discovery Violations. Litigators need to read the Sixth District’s recent decision in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings, Case Nos. H042715 et al. (6th Dist. Dec. 2, 2020) (published) on sanctions available for
Ninth Circuit Came To The Same Result, Even Under An Objective Standard Although SCOTUS Sent The Case Back Based On Denying Contempt Fees Under A Less Stringent Good Faith Belief Standard. On April 28, 2020, we posted on In re Taggart, a Ninth Circuit decision where two ex-partners in state court litigation against a
Misuse Of The Discovery Process Does Not Have To Be Willful Before Monetary Sanctions May Be Imposed, But Punishment For Contempt Rests Upon A Clear, Intentional Violation. We previously discussed the next case in our February 24, 2017 post. At that time, the 2/3 DCA had dismissed minor’s appeal from an order that
Attorney Fees/Costs Order Was Not Supported By Statute And The Proper “Unit Of Prosecution” For Attorney’s Conduct At A Fifteen Minute Settlement Conference Was A Single Count Of Contempt. In Moore v. Superior Court, Case No. G058609 (4th Dist., Div. 3 November 16, 2020) (published), while representing a client at a fifteen minute
Attorney Was Notified By The American Arbitration Association That The Error In Applying Defendants’ Fees Had Been Corrected, And The AAA Simply Needed Plaintiff’s Confirmation Of Intent To Proceed. In McCluskey v. Henry, Case No. A158851 (1st Dist., Div. 3 November 2, 2020) (partially published – fees discussion unpublished), plaintiff sued employees of
Wife Failed To Take Advantage Of Protections Afforded To Parties Suffering Mental Health Issues And She Suffered No Prejudice When Trial Court Failed To Make Express Findings Because It Considered And Addressed The Same Statutory Factors In Determining Spousal Support. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100, parties can seek accommodations from the
Message From This One Is Be Candid With The Court—Do Not Tell Half-Truths! In Levine v. Berschneider (Richards), Case No. B300824 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 29, 2020) (published), an attorney was sanctioned $5,310 under CCP § 128.5 (bad faith tactics) and § 1209 (contempt) for playing coy on whether settlement checks had been
Specific Appealability Provisions Governed The Result. In Marriage of Rattan & Prasad, Case No. A157880 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband’s attorney was disqualified and was assessed with a CCP §§ 128.5/128.7 sanctions motion of $5,000 for filing frivolous motions. Attorney’s appeal of the sanctions order was unsuccessful because (1) CCP
Failure To Follow 128.7 Procedural Requirements Doomed Part Of Sanctions Award. CCP § 128.7 sanctions are procedural in nature and rule bound. Do not follow the procedural rules, and you will lose a sanctions order in the lower court. Marriage of Nott, Case No. B293055 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 16, 2020) (unpublished), is
