Cases: Sanctions

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 Jan. 25, 2019) (unpublished), the Third District affirmed a $17,820 sanctions award imposed under CCP § 128.7, observing in the process that no showing of bad faith (only legal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 […]

Sanctions: $12,000 In CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Were No Abuse Of Discretion For Unsuccessful Disqualification Motion On The Eve Of Trial

Cases: Sanctions

“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             Hanna v. City of Long Beach, Case No. B281878 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished) shows how good arguments can be lost if not timely raised.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

Sanctions: 4/1 DCA Panel Agrees That CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Are Unwarranted Unless Moving Parties Comply With CCP § 128.7 “Safe Harbor” Requirements

Cases: Sanctions

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

Appealability, Sanctions: Later Order Vacating Default Judgment Was Appealable But Stayed Where Prior Appealed Order Had Required $27,968.75 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs To Vacate Default Judgment

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

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 B281031/B281973 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2018) (unpublished), is a 2-1 decision regarding stay appealability

Sanctions: February 2017 Report By California Research Bureau On CCP § 128.5 and 128.7 Sanctions Motions Show They Are Not Filed In Very Many Cases

Cases: Sanctions

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

Arbitration, Sanctions: After Compelling Arbitration And Then Failing To Pursue It, Fitbit And Its Litigation Attorneys Liable For Bad-Faith Sanctions In Heart-Tracking Devise Action

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Sanctions

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,

Discovery/Sanctions: Plaintiff In Pro Per Attorney Properly Imposed With Discovery Sanctions Of $5,510 (Inclusive Of Attorney’s Fees) Under CCP § 2030.300(d)

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: Moofly Productions Opinion Certified For Publication

Cases: Sanctions

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

Discovery, Family Law, Sanctions: $5,500 Discovery Sanctions Award Against Ex-Client Attorney Reversed Where Attorney Not Given Notice She Was A “Sanctions Target”

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: 2/1 DCA, In Unpublished Decision, Determines That Trial Court Must Comply With CCP § 128.7 Safe Harbor Rule Before Sanctioning Party For Violating CCP § 1008 Reconsideration Prohibitions

Cases: Sanctions

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

Scroll to Top