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game, the next case—Petrik v. Mahaffey & Associates (Berger Kahn), Case No. G055779 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2019) (unpublished)—exemplifies this in spades.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 In Kleidman v. Hilton & Hyland Real Estate, Inc., Case No. B285692 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 26, 2019) (unpublished), $1,100 in sanctions were awarded against appellant and in favor of respondents based on a request in a motion to strike costs.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Although procedurally different in nature, Marriage of Haghighat, Case No. G054993 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 17, 2019) (unpublished) demonstrates how family law judges and appellate justices can impose attorney’s fees and frivolous appeal sanctions when a litigant hides marital
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 In Electronic Universe, Inc. v. Superior Court (Reece), Case No. B285898 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 20, 2019) (unpublished), corporate defendant (which was suspended for failure to pay franchise fees) and its attorney were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 Justice Bendix, the author of Osborn v. Saucedo, Case No. B283605 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 1, 2019) (unpublished), reminds trial judges that litigation is not frivolous where there are disputed issues of fact even if they might be somewhat slim in nature.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
