Cases: Sanctions

Appealability, Discovery, Family Law, Requests For Admission, Sanctions: Appeal Dismissed For Petitioner Who Was Dissatisfied With Trial Court’s Order On His Motion To Have Requests For Admission Deemed Admitted And For Sanctions

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

The Appellate Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review A Discovery Order.             Petitioner father and respondent mother in Minasian v. Katz, Case No. A158517 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2020) (unpublished) were involved an incredibly protracted action – dating back to 2004 – regarding their child who was born the year before.      […]

Sanctions, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Prevailing CPRA Petitioner Properly Denied Fees Under Mandatory Fee-Shifting Statute And Under Code Civ. Proc. Section 128.5 Based On Her Self-Represented Status

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Prevailing Petitioner Was Not Represented By Legal Counsel And Did Not Incur Or Become Liable For Attorney Fees.             In Drevaleva v. Alameda Health Sytem, Case No. A158282 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 29, 2020) (unpublished), the trial court denied prevailing CPRA (California Public Records Act) petitioner’s requests for attorney’s fees, under Gov.

Sanctions: $6,075 CCP §128.5 Sanctions Award Affirmed On Appeal In Long-Spanning Neighbor Spat

Cases: Sanctions

Plaintiff Litigant Properly Assessed With Sanctions Because Engaged In Litigation For Improper Purpose In Light of Releases Under Prior Settlement Agreement.             Beuchel v. Flanagan, Case No. B296548 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 28, 2020) (unpublished) demonstrates, yet again, how neighborhood disputes can result in dire consequences, although the amount involved was not that bad

Probate, Request For Admissions, Sanctions: More Than $1.8 Million In CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Went POOF! On Appeal, But RFA “Cost Of Proof” Sanctions Of Over $1 Million Stuck On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

128.5 Sanctions Went Away Because It Did Not Apply To The Action Datewise, While RFA “Sanctions” Were No Abuse Of Discretion Even Though Substantial In Nature.             First of all, we hope all of our readers are safe—this pandemic has presented unprecedented, bizarre consequences, but hope you are well.  We are happy to report that

Discovery, Sanctions: $7,862.50 Sanctions Award Against Cross-Complainant In Insurance Case Affirmed On Appeal For Presenting An Unsuccessful Motion To Augment An Expert Witness Designation

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Cross-Complainant’s Dilatory Conduct Justified The Sanctions Award.             Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.630 states that a trial court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to augment or amend expert witness information, unless it finds that the one subject

Sanctions: $5,185.00 Section 128.7 Sanctions Award Against Plaintiff For Legally Frivolous Lawsuit Against Successor Attorney Defendant Who Did Not Pay Plaintiff’s Medical Lien When His Client’s Case Resolved Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

Second District Finds Gilman Precisely On Point.             In Medfin Manager, LLC v. Carrazco, Case No. B292644 (2d Dist., Div. 3 April 6, 2020) (unpublished), a personal injury patient signed contractual liens giving the hospital that provided some of his medical care a lien against any settlement or judgment he might recover in litigation

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

Scroll to Top