Cases: Sanctions

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             In ATG Electronics, Inc. v. The Mulcahy Law Firm, Case No. G056931 (4th Dist., Div. 3 January 16, 2020) (unpublished), Law Firm claiming Former Client owed almost $100,000 in outstanding […]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             The 2/8 DCA in Dalessandro v. Mitchell, Case No. B293472 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 17, 2019 unpublished), but certified for publication on January 3, 2020,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 Div. 2 October 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiffs and their attorney challenged a monetary sanctions order issued against them for repeated failures to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

Sanctions: 1/1 DCA Clarifies That Subjective Bad Faith Is Required Under CCP § 128.5, With Only Objective Bad Faith Required Under CCP § 128.7

Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: Failure To Raise Safe Harbor Argument In Opposition To CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Before Judicial Referee Was A Waiver

Cases: Sanctions

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

Family Law, Sanctions: Father Making Another Sanctions Motion After Trial Judge Already Ruled On Prior Request Was Properly Denied

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

“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.”            

Scroll to Top