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 Beuchel v. Flanagan, Case No. B296548 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 28, 2020) (unpublished) demonstrates, yet again, how neighborhood disputes can result in dire consequences, although the amount involved was not that bad […]
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
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
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 In Medfin Manager, LLC v. Carrazco, Case No. B292644 (2d Dist., Div. 3 April 6, 2020) (unpublished), a personal injury patient signed contractual liens giving the hospital that provided some of his medical care a lien against any settlement or judgment he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
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)
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.
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 In Lee v. Harjono, Case No. A151656 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 23, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff (a lawyer) sued defendant driver and his wife in a car accident case, rejecting some CCP
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
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,
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
