“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 Hanna v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B281878 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished) shows how good arguments can be lost if not timely raised.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 B281031/B281973 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished), is a 2-1 decision regarding stay appealability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,
Appellate Court Rejects In Pro Per’s Due Process Argument And Challenge To Temporary Judge’s Initial Assignment To Motion Matter. DeWitt v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. A151545 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 22, 2018) (unpublished) is a situation where an in pro per attorney, representing himself as plaintiff, sued several defendants in a
Trial Court Must Provide 21-Day Safe Harbor Warning Before Imposing Sanctions For Improper Reconsideration. On June 1, 2018, we posted on Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila, Case No. B282084 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 1, 2018), unpublished at the time. It held that a trial court must follow CCP § 128.7 21-day safe harbor
Due Process Violation Was Reason For Reversal. In Marriage of Mehta & Grover, Case No. A146919 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2018) (unpublished), a $5,500 discovery sanction against an ex-attorney for wife was reversed on due process grounds. What happened was that before the discovery sanctions motion was decided, attorney was relieved as
Trial Judge Did Not Notify Putative Sanctioned Party That It Would Be Sanctioned Sans A Withdrawal Of The Reconsideration Motion. Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila, Case No. B282084 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 1, 2018) (unpublished) demonstrates that trial judges, just like litigants, must satisfy CCP § 128.7 sanctions safe harbor requirements before doling
Instagram And Suspicious Plane Itinerary, Along With Attorney Admission, Led To Imposition Of Sanctions. When it comes to blowing deadlines which can be cured, counsel should be candid with courts in requesting relief, which can be granted if the circumstances are right. The next situation, which has drawn quite a bit of publicity, illustrates
