Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: $16,000 CCP § 128.7 Sanction Against Successor Counsel, Based On Motion Not Specifying The Improper Conduct Before He Formally Substituted In, Was Reversed

Cases: Sanctions

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).             […]

Sanctions: Although Lower Court’s CCP § 128.5 Order Failed To Be Sufficiently Detailed In Writing, Bad Faith Finding Became Law Of The Case For The Remand Proceeding

Cases: Sanctions

$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             In Mid-Centry Insurance Company v. Mazarei, Case No. G056643 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 27, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff insurer was suing to recoup defense expenses to an insured, with the lower court determining that

Sanctions: $35,000 Sanctions Order Payable By Plaintiffs’ Attorney To Opposing Defense Counsel Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

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game, the next case—Petrik v. Mahaffey & Associates (Berger Kahn), Case No. G055779 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2019) (unpublished)—exemplifies this in spades.

Sanctions: Respondents Concede That $1,110 Sanctions Award Against Opponent Had To Be Reversed Under CCP § 128.5

Cases: Sanctions

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             In Kleidman v. Hilton & Hyland Real Estate, Inc., Case No. B285692 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 26, 2019) (unpublished), $1,100 in sanctions were awarded against appellant and in favor of respondents based on a request in a motion to strike costs.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

Family Law, Sanctions: Husband Losing Hiding Marital Asset Appeal Was Going To Have To Pay Attorney’s Fees And Frivolous Appeal Sanctions On Remand, Likely, In Some Amount

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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

In The News, Sanctions: Over $1 Million Sanctions Imposed Against Condo Plaintiff And His Lawyer In Cook County Superior Court

Cases: Sanctions, In The News

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

Requests For Admissions, Sanctions: Defendants Properly Denied RFA Costs Of Proof Sanctions And Plaintiff Properly Denied CCP § 128.7 Request For Defense Bringing Frivolous Proof Of Costs/128.5 Sanctions Motion

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: 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

Sanctions: $5,000 CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Jointly And Severally Assessed Against Defendant And Its Attorney Reversed On Appeal (Which Was Treated As A Writ)

Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Disputed Factual Issues Does Not Mean The Litigation Was Frivolous

Cases: Sanctions

$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

Sanctions: $17,820 In CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Affirmed, Because No Subjective Bad Faith Finding Necessary, Unlike What Is Required Under § 128.5

Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top