Cases: Sanctions

Family Law, Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms $75,000 In § 271 Sanctions Against Ex-Wife With Mental Health Issues And Denial Of Her § 2030 Needs-Based Attorney Fees Request Despite Trial Court’s Failure To Make Express Findings

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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 […]

Sanctions: $5,310 Sanctions Order Against Attorney Under CCP § 128.5 And CCP § 1209 (Contempt) Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

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

Appealability, Family Law, Sanctions: $5,000 Sanctions Award Against Ex-Husband’s Attorney Found Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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             In Marriage of Rattan & Prasad, Case No. A157880 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband’s attorney was disqualified and was assessed with a CCP §§ 128.5/128.7 sanctions motion of $5,000 for filing frivolous motions.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

Family Law, Sanctions: Section 271 Sanctions Affirmed But CCP § 128.7 Sanctions For Reconsideration Motion Reversed Based On Lack Of Appropriate Procedural Compliance

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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  Marriage of Nott, Case No. B293055 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 16, 2020) (unpublished), is

Family Law, Sanctions: $4,290 Sanctions Against Wife’s Attorney Under CCP § 128.7 Reversed On Two Grounds

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Sanctions: $5,684 Discovery Sanction Against Plaintiffs Affirmed Where They Could Not Produce A Written Confirmation Of A Discovery Extension

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Family Law, Sanctions: 4/2 DCA Affirms $29,993 In Family Code §§ 271 and 2030 Sanctions Issued Against Ex-Husband, Plus Another $3,892.50 In Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2(a) Fees And Costs For Ex-Wife’s Successful Motion To Quash

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Sanctions: Trial Court Cannot Impose Discovery Sanctions Once A Vexatious Litigant Motion Is Filed

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Costs, Sanctions: Trial Court Properly Denied CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Even Though Opposition Evidence Was Not Overwhelming; However, Costs Had To Be Awarded To Attorney Obtaining Dismissal Of Ex-Client’s Malpractice Complaint

Cases: Costs, Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions, SLAPP: Trial Court Appropriately Issued Sanctions Against Defendant, Who Was Involved In Pending Litigation With Plaintiff, For Violation Of Restraining Order Dictating Method And Nature Of Communications With Plaintiff

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

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

Scroll to Top