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 On June 1, 2018, we posted on Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila, Case No. B282084 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 1, 2018), unpublished at the time.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 In Marriage of Mehta & Grover, Case No. A146919 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2018) (unpublished), a $5,500 discovery sanction against an ex-attorney for wife was reversed on due process grounds.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 Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila, Case No. B282084 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 1, 2018) (unpublished) demonstrates that trial judges, just like litigants, must satisfy CCP § 128.7 sanctions safe harbor requirements before doling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
Ninth Circuit Clarified Some Reasoning In Zilog Decision. In In re Taggart, Case No. 16-35402 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2018) (published), the Ninth Circuit clarified some prior reasoning in In re Zilog, 450 F.3d 996, 1009 n.14 (9th Cir. 2006) to reinforce that contempt sanctions cannot be assessed against a creditor for knowingly violating
Among Other Things, Damning Admissions In Debtor Exam Sealed The Deal. In Quadri v. Alkayali, Case No. G054914 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 19, 2018) (unpublished), the 4/3 DCA—in a panel decision authored by Justice Bedsworth—affirmed around a $ 34,000 sanction against a litigant losing an “extrinsic fraud” challenge to a prior verdict. Among
Plaintiffs Advanced A Plausible Interpretation Of A Phrase In Prior Settlement Stipulation Such That Sanctions Were Not Warranted. In Ponce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 21 Cal.App.5th 253, Case No. C080680 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2018) (published), a trial judge sanctioned plaintiffs who brought lender liability claims in a residential property dispute with terminating sanctions
Two Separate Sanctions Below $5,000 Cannot Be Aggregated For Appealability Purposes. In Mitchell Anthony Productions, LLC v. Baron, Case No. B282974 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 28, 2018) (unpublished), the trial judge awarded $4,860 in discovery sanctions on separate motions to compel further discovery responses to the interrogatories and requests
$5,000 Sanctions Award Against Attorney Reversed. Attorney and client her were sanctioned for $5,000 under CCP § 128.7 and Family Code § 271 in Saidiner v. Jacobs-Jakubowicz, Case No. B275860 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 26, 2018) (unpublished). Attorney appealed the sanctions award, which was reversed on appeal. The CCP § 128.7 sanctions could
Second District Departs Company With Contrary Result In San Diegans for Open Government. San Diegans for Open Government v. San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1317 (2016) [reviewed in our June 9, 2016 post] held that a party filing a CCP § 128.5 sanctions motion does not need to comply with the safe harbor waiting
