"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 Feb. 1, 2017) (unpublished) is a case where an attorney's fees award was reversed and remanded in order to prevent "double dipping": the trial judge previously awarded discovery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 Idewu v. Clark, Case No. B266573 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 24, 2017) (unpublished) is a situation where a trial judge likely was somewhat irked by the conduct of a defendant successfully moving to compel arbitration.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 Wilson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. D070965 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 20, 2017) (unpublished) was somewhat of a pyrrhic victor for plaintiff on appeal.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,
$10,000 Out Of $28,080 Sanctions Request Granted. In Concepcion Vinas v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center, Case No. A143541 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 20, 2016) (unpublished), attorney was sanctioned $10,000 under CCP § 128.7 for filing a second amended complaint which had the same allegations as a first amended complaint to
Lower Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Consider Motion Post-Dismissal. Timing is everything, as illustrated in the sanctions area by Cerna v. Molina, Case No. B265272 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 17, 2016) (unpublished). There, defendants and their attorney were monetarily sanctioned in connection with certain discovery motions. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. However,
Certiorari Granted With Consolidated Case On September 29, 2016. On September 29, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15-1406 (U.S.), a Ninth Circuit 2-1 decision [discussed in our July 21, 2015 post], and consolidated it with Musnuff v. Haeger, No. 15-1491
First Half Of 2016 Saw A Large Decline. Gibson Dunn has published a mid-year 2016 review of electronically stored information (ESI) decisions in federal courts involving requests for sanctions. There has been a large decline. In the first half of 2016, there were only 32 reported decisions, 13 granting sanctions and 19
Source: Wikipedia. Article “Trifecta.” Prevailing Party/Settlement: Goldenwest Plaza, LLC v. The Frank and Gertrude R. Doyle Foundation, Case No. G050766 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2016) (Unpublished) –Split Result Meant No Prevailing Party. This case was a messy partition case where differing ownership interests with disputes on management of a shopping center brought
