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 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
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
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 Genesis Media, LLC v. Misle, Case No. B294620 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 10, 2019) (unpublished) is an appeal from a discovery sanction where an inadequate appellate record and untimely motion to augment sealed the fate
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
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 v. Wilshire Commercial LLC, Case No. B285336 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 23, 2019) (unpublished) is a case where a court-appointed referee sanctioned plaintiff HOA $31,065 for taking a frivolous legal position in
“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style, summed up the “end result” in Marriage of Anka & Yeager, Case No. B289610 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 19, 2019) (unpublished) this way: “A party cannot be sanctioned twice for the same misconduct.”
Also, Motel Owner Properly Hit With Opposition Fees For Denied CCP § 128.5 Motion. In City of South Lake Tahoe v. Cobrae, Case No. C083568 (3d Dist. Aug. 5, 2019) (unpublished), City of South Lake Tahoe filed a petition seeking appointment of a receiver against a motel owner based on allegations that he had
Prelitigation Conduct Does Not Justify 128.5 Sanctions Award, But Combo Motion Also Justified The Result. In Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Structured Asset Sales, LLC (Currency Corp.), Case Nos. B272418/B278379 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 30, 2019) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a $176,869 CCP § 128.5 sanctions award against a client represented by co-contributor
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).
