Cases: Sanctions

Discovery, Sanctions: Louisiana Federal District Judge Assesses Fees And Sanctions Against Defendant And/Or Its Attorney For Deposition Interruptions, Speaking Objections, Instructions To Not Answer, Witness Coaching, And Failure To Prepare The Deponent

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Various Fees And Sanctions Ordered Under FRCP 37.             We sometimes blog on cases outside of California.  This one caught our eye because it received press in a March 30, 2020 post by Debra Cassens Weiss in the ABA Journal.             In REC Marine Logistics, LLC v. Richard, No. 19-11149 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2020) […]

Appealability, Sanctions: Attorney, Although Not Appealing In Appeal By Client, Has Standing To Proceed Unless Prejudice To Opposing Party

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

California Supreme Court Indicate Prejudice, Not Per Se, Analysis Is Applicable.             As indicated in our Year-End 2019 cases relevant to this blog, the only pending case on sanctions issue was still pending for decision.  Well, it is in.             In K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., Case No. S241057 (Cal. Supreme Ct., Jan.

Sanctions, Section 998: 1/5 DCA Reversed And Remanded CCP § 998 Award In Favor Of Defendants, Although Reversing As A Matter Of Law CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Against Plaintiff

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998

Lower Court’s 998 Award Needed Recalculation; 2017 Amendments To Section 128.5 Rendered That Award Against Plaintiff Invalid As A Matter Of Law.             In Lee v. Harjono, Case No. A151656 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 23, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff (a lawyer) sued defendant driver and his wife in a car accident case, rejecting some CCP

Arbitration, Sanctions: 4/3 DCA Affirms $50,000 Code Civ. Proc. Section 128.5 Sanctions Awarded Against Client And Attorney For Their Frivolous Litigation and Dilatory Tactics

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

Broad Language In The Parties’ Retainer Agreement Authorized Arbitrator’s Review Of Ancillary Matters – Such As Litigation Conduct Rationally Related To The Underlying Dispute.             In ATG Electronics, Inc. v. The Mulcahy Law Firm, Case No. G056931 (4th Dist., Div. 3 January 16, 2020) (unpublished), Law Firm claiming Former Client owed almost $100,000 in outstanding

Appealability, Discovery, Sanctions: $3,456.70 In Fee Sanctions Based On Denial Of Postjudgment Discovery Order Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Motion Denying Discovery Order Is Nonappealable, But 2/8 DCA Treated It As Mandate Petition; CCP § 128.5 Principles Were Not Involved, Because Discovery Sanctions Were At Issue Instead.             The 2/8 DCA in Dalessandro v. Mitchell, Case No. B293472 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 17, 2019 unpublished), but certified for publication on January 3, 2020,

Sanctions: Fourth District Affirms Monetary Sanctions Imposed Against Plaintiffs And Their Attorney For Abuse Of The Discovery Process

Cases: Sanctions

Appealing The Order Without A Reporter’s Transcript And With Only Partial Excerpts From The Clerk’s Transcript Proved To Be A Fatal Flaw.             In Williams v. Hernandez, Case No. E071599, (4th Dist. Div. 2 October 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiffs and their attorney challenged a monetary sanctions order issued against them for repeated failures to

POOF!, Sanctions: $70,548.95 CCP § 128.5 Order Against Most Plaintiffs Reversed Based On Erroneous Denial Of Relief From Jury Trial Waiver

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

Also, Another Plaintiff Was Not Give Safe Harbor Notice In Time To Do Anything—So, A Reversal.             The importance of the jury trial right was front and center in Mackovksa v. Viewcrest Road Properties, Case No. B288778 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 18, 2019) (published), although the ultimate merits reversal also made a reversal of

Sanctions: Under 2014 Version Of CCP § 128.5 (Objective Standard Only), Trial Judge Correctly Imposed Sanctions Against Plaintiff For Filing A Complaint Without Evidentiary Support

Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions Order Was $27,253.51 In Fees/Costs, Out Of A Requested $36,304.11.             We have seen an uptick in appeals involving CCP § 128.5 in the last several months, with California’s intermediate appellate courts dealing with the differences in the 2014 and 2017 versions of the statute.  In Avalanche Funding, LLC v. Swickard, Case No. C083954

Sanctions: Lack Of Reporter’s Transcript Of Trial Proceedings Doomed Challenge To CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Order For Plaintiff Prosecuting A Frivolous Discrimination Claim

Cases: Sanctions

Trial Judge Awarded $36,037.54 In Fees (Out Of Requested $298,649) And $18,524.13 (Out Of Requested $54,986.19) To Defendant, Assessed Jointly And Severally Against Plaintiff And Her Attorneys.             The lack of an adequate record doomed an abuse of discretion challenge by plaintiff to a CCP § 128.5 sanctions order in Cabrera v. Popchips, Inc., Case

Discovery, Sanctions: Failure To Designate The Deposition Video In The Appellate Court Doomed Challenge To $11,000 Sanction For Unilaterally Terminating A Videotaped Deposition

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Motion To Augment The Record To Include The Video, One Day After The Appellate Argument, Was Deemed Untimely.             Genesis Media, LLC v. Misle, Case No. B294620 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 10, 2019) (unpublished) is an appeal from a discovery sanction where an inadequate appellate record and untimely motion to augment sealed the fate

Scroll to Top