Dissenting Circuit Judge Would Have Affirmed Based On Waiver. On April 23, 2017, we posted on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017), which found that a $2.7 million “inherent power of the court” sanctions award needed a restudy based […]
Abuse Of Discretion Standard Not Overcome By Appealing Ex-Wife. Marriage of Gregora and Feldman, Case No. B269587 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 8, 2017) (unpublished) was a high profile divorce case involving Los Angeles attorneys, where ex-wife lost a key breach of fiduciary claim, prompting the trial court to impose a sanction
Equity—Gilotti v. Stewart, Case No. C075611 (3d Dist. April 26, 2017) (Unpublished): Section 998 Offer, Typo Notwithstanding Valid, and Attorney’s Self Interest Disqualified Fee Recovery. In this construction defect lawsuit, plaintiff was ordered to pay a prevailing grading contractor expert fees under CCP § 998, even though the offer said $49,999
$2.7 Million Sanctions Against Goodyear Reversed And Remanded, But Waiver Issue Might Sustain $2 Million Of Sanctions Award. Stripping tube on mandrel before sending to cure, Goodyear Tire Factory, Akron, Ohio. c1928. Library of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Appeal By Attorney’s Client Did Not Get It Done. In K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Case No. B269864 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 23, 2017) (unpublished), a minor’s attorney was ordered to pay attorney’s fees and costs to LAUSD as a discovery sanctions. Minor appealed from the sanctions order. The
"Double Dipping" Was The Rationale. Earl & Reimer APC v. Klimek, Case No. H041638 (6th Dist. Feb. 1, 2017) (unpublished) is a case where an attorney's fees award was reversed and remanded in order to prevent "double dipping": the trial judge previously awarded discovery sanctions, and those sanctions were not properly taken into account
Answer: Roast Costs $250 In A Recent California Federal Magistrate’s Ruling. Pike Place Market, cup detail on sign. Seattle, Washington. Photographer: Carol M. Highsmith. Between 1980 and 2006. Library of Congress. As reported by Law360, an attorney who spilled — or perhaps threw — a cup of iced coffee on an
Sanctions Order Did Not Have Adequate Specificity. Idewu v. Clark, Case No. B266573 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2017) (unpublished) is a situation where a trial judge likely was somewhat irked by the conduct of a defendant successfully moving to compel arbitration. After the matter was moved to arbitration, the arbitration proceeded
Somewhat Of A Pyrrhic Victory For Plaintiff. Wilson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. D070965 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 20, 2017) (unpublished) was somewhat of a pyrrhic victor for plaintiff on appeal. What happened below was that a trial judge erroneously failed to honor plaintiff's dismissal of an action, striking it and then
Reason Is That Ground For Sanctions Was Statute Only Applying To Postjudgment Interrogatories And Document Requests, Not J/D Exams. A lower court sanctioned a judgment debtor’s attorney to the tune of $5,000 under CCP § 2023.030 for directing a client not to answer certain questions at a judgment debtor examination. The appellate court,
