Sanctions Paid For Fees Incurred By HOA/Condo Board Members And For Increased HOA Insurance Costs. As reported by Debra Cassens Weiss in an April 8, 2019 post on the ABA Journal (on-line version), a Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) state court judge has sanctioned a condo litigant and his attorney over $1 million in sanctions […]
Defendant Failed To Meet RFA Costs Of Proof Burden Or Segregate Out Costs For Actually Proving Truths Of Matters In A Demurrer Proceeding, While Plaintiff’s Request For 128.7 Sanctions In An Opposition Was Procedurally Infirm. I guess we can say that the results in Eng v. Brown, Case No. D072980 (4th Dist., Div. 1
Appeal Treated As Mandate Petition, With Plaintiff Not Showing He, As In Pro Per Attorney, Incurred Any Independent Attorney’s Fees. In Electronic Universe, Inc. v. Superior Court (Reece), Case No. B285898 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 20, 2019) (unpublished), corporate defendant (which was suspended for failure to pay franchise fees) and its attorney were
$3,500 Sanctions Award Was At Issue. Justice Bendix, the author of Osborn v. Saucedo, Case No. B283605 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 1, 2019) (unpublished), reminds trial judges that litigation is not frivolous where there are disputed issues of fact even if they might be somewhat slim in nature. A $3,500 sanctions award under
However, No Additional Appellate Sanctions Imposed. In Horner v. Judges’ Retirement System, Case No. C084619 (3d Dist. Jan. 25, 2019) (unpublished), the Third District affirmed a $17,820 sanctions award imposed under CCP § 128.7, observing in the process that no showing of bad faith (only legal frivolousness) is necessary under this sanctions statute versus
“Safe Harbor” Argument Might Have Worked, But It Was Waived Because Only Raised In Appellant’s Reply Brief. Hanna v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B281878 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished) shows how good arguments can be lost if not timely raised. In this one, City and its counsel were jointly
Panel Disagrees With Prior 4/1 Panel In San Diegans for Open Government And Follows Contrary Result Reached By 2/7 DCA In Nutrition Distribution. We find the result in CPF Vaseo Associates, LLC v. Gray, Case No. D072909 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 6, 2018) (published) both refreshing and correct in its reasoning. It goes
Result Was Defendant Had 25 Days After Remittitur To Pay Fee/Costs Vacate Award, With Dissenting Justice Believing That The Fees/Costs Award Should Be Reduced Down By Another $17,250. This next case, F&S Investment Properties v. Nguyen-Stevenson, Case Nos. B281031/B281973 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished), is a 2-1 decision regarding stay appealability
Report Also Shows That Reporting Attorneys Did Not Provide The “End Conclusions” To The Sanctions Requests. In February 2017, the California Research Bureau issued a mandatory report for 2015-2016 relating to the use of CCP § 128.5 motions (whether alone or combined with CCP § 128.7 motions) as required under section 128.5. Although attorneys
Fitbit Did Finally Agree To Arbitrate, But Only After District Judge Expressed Concerns Over Its Litigation Conduct, Which Will Result In Some Amount Of Sanctions And Other Prospective Actions Ordered By District Judge. Arbitration frequently is invoked by defendants because of the perception that it is more user friendly in many types of cases,
