San Diegans for Open Government Decision Is No Longer Good Law Under Section 128.5. Looks like Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb and Taeb, Case No. A152178 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 26, 2019) (published) has finally clarified the differences in “bad faith” now required for the version of CCP § 128.5 in effect under 2017 urgency […]
However, A Waiver—But Only One Endorsed Through A 2-1 Panel Opinion Split By The 2/5 DCA. 1100 Wilshire Property Owners Assn. v. Wilshire Commercial LLC, Case No. B285336 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 23, 2019) (unpublished) is a case where a court-appointed referee sanctioned plaintiff HOA $31,065 for taking a frivolous legal position in
“A Party Cannot Be Sanctioned Twice For the Same Misconduct.” Presiding Justice Gilbert, who has a unique writing style, summed up the “end result” in Marriage of Anka & Yeager, Case No. B289610 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 19, 2019) (unpublished) this way: “A party cannot be sanctioned twice for the same misconduct.”
Also, Motel Owner Properly Hit With Opposition Fees For Denied CCP § 128.5 Motion. In City of South Lake Tahoe v. Cobrae, Case No. C083568 (3d Dist. Aug. 5, 2019) (unpublished), City of South Lake Tahoe filed a petition seeking appointment of a receiver against a motel owner based on allegations that he had
Prelitigation Conduct Does Not Justify 128.5 Sanctions Award, But Combo Motion Also Justified The Result. In Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC (Currency Corp.), Case Nos. B272418/B278379 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 30, 2019) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a $176,869 CCP § 128.5 sanctions award against a client represented by co-contributor
Simply Filing A Declaration Saying “Retained” Was Not Tantamount To Presentation Of Complaint Filed By Predecessor Counsel. Timing can be everything, and it was in the next case considering a CCP § 128.7 sanctions award in Primo Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Haney, Case No. B283030 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 5, 2019) (published).
$6,400 Sanctions Award Against Attorney Was At Issue For Going Away On A European Vacation Rather Than Reporting For Trial. In Mid-Centry Insurance Company v. Mazarei, Case No. G056643 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 27, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff insurer was suing to recoup defense expenses to an insured, with the lower court determining that
Plaintiffs’ Counsel Wanted Sanctions Award “Offset” Against Judgment Obtained By Counsel For Fees Judgment Adverse To His Clients, But It Was Not In The Cards! Talk about an interesting card game, the next case—Petrik v. Mahaffey & Associates (Berger Kahn), Case No. G055779 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2019) (unpublished)—exemplifies this in spades.
2/2 DCA Follows Sister Division 7’s Reasoning In Nutrition Distribution. In Kleidman v. Hilton & Hyland Real Estate, Inc., Case No. B285692 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 26, 2019) (unpublished), $1,100 in sanctions were awarded against appellant and in favor of respondents based on a request in a motion to strike costs. Commendably, respondents
Rub Here Was That Trial Judge Stayed Any Fee Ruling Pending Determination Of Merits Appeal. Although procedurally different in nature, Marriage of Haghighat, Case No. G054993 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 17, 2019) (unpublished) demonstrates how family law judges and appellate justices can impose attorney’s fees and frivolous appeal sanctions when a litigant hides marital
