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 In Marriage of Rattan & Prasad, Case No. A157880 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband’s attorney was disqualified and was assessed with a CCP §§ 128.5/128.7 sanctions motion of $5,000 for filing frivolous motions.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 Marriage of Nott, Case No. B293055 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 16, 2020) (unpublished), is
First, A Section 2030 Earlier Denial Request Is Not Subject To Reconsideration Limitations, And Husband Did Not Give Proper Section 128.7 Notice Of The Bases For Sanctions—Double Whammy Reversal On Appeal. The Fourth District, Division Two, in Marriage of Hull, Case No. E072222 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished) was a 3-0
Beyond That, The Defense Did Not Pull The Trigger Too Hastily On Motions To Compel, Trying To Work It Out. Discovery frequently is the bane of both practitioners and judges, not to mention studies that confirm it has led to an increase in the costs of civil litigation for many, many cases. California has
Self-Represented Ex-Husband Learned The Hard Way That Uncooperative Conduct, Unduly Delaying Resolution, And Refusal To Participate In RFO Hearing Can Be Incredibly Costly – And This Was On Top Of $13,200 In Sanctions Already Issued Against Him Earlier In This Case. In Marriage of Ehirim, Case No. E072397 (4th Dist., Div. 2 September
Imposition Of Sanctions Was Error Because Filing Of Motion Stayed Further Proceedings Except A Ruling On The Vexatious Litigant Motion. In Hanna v. Little League Baseball, Inc., Case Nos. E070995 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 18, 2020) (partially published; sanctions discussion published), defendant filed a motion to have plaintiff declared a vexatious
Prevailing Attorney Fell Within Mandatory Category Of A Routine Costs Grant. This next matter involved a contentious domestic, non-divorce temporary restraining order situation where an attorney sued for recovery of unpaid fees by one side (a male in a relationship with an ex-girlfriend) where there were malpractice allegations that the attorney had an affair
Defendant’s Claims Of Litigation Privilege And Anti-SLAPP Law Protections Were No Defense Of Her Violations Of Restraining Order. Self-represented husband and wife were involved in litigation through various lawsuits against self-represented ex-girlfriend of husband – claiming ex-girlfriend conspired with others to fraudulently obtain money, including substantial sums allegedly conned from husband. Husband’s relationship with
The Only One Of Four Will Contestants Who Showed For Trial Provided No Evidence To Support The Request For Admission Denial. Estate of Moshier, Case No. G057076 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2020) (unpublished) involved a will contest brought by decedent’s adoptive brother and three adult nieces against decedent’s wife. Decedent’s will
