Cases: Sanctions – Page 18 – Cal Attorneys Fees

In The News . . . . Ninth Circuit Reverses Sanctions Awards Against Attorney For Making Faces In Courtroom And No Attorney’s Fees Assessed Against The Wolfe Trust In Led Zepplin Copyright Infringement Case

August 11, 2016

Making Faces In Courtroom, Which Were Found Not To Be Made In Bad Faith, Was Not Sanctionable. Alice S. Kandell, photographer. May 1971. Library of Congress. The Ninth Circuit, in Hernandez (Boothe) v. City of Vancouver, No. 13-35131 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016) (unpublished), reviewed a $145,765.43 sanctions award against a […]

Sanctions/Taxation: $5,000 Sanctions Against Losing “Top 500” State Income Tax Debtor Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Taxation

July 10, 2016

Income Tax Debtor Lost Federal Court Action, So Dismissal In State Court Was Justified And State Proceeding Was Unreasonable As A Matter of Law. In Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd., Case No. B267719 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 8, 2016) (published), a plaintiff—who was on the Franchise Tax Board’s published list of “Top

Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting Statute: 4/1 DCA Clarifies Scope Of “Revived” Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 Sanctions Statute

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

June 9, 2016

Appellate Court Reverses Denial Of Section 128.5 Sanctions, But Affirms Fee Recovery To Plaintiff Under California Public Records Act. San Diegans For Open Government v. City of San Diego, Case No. D068421 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 7, 2016) (published) is a key decision on the timing, applicability, and scope of Code of

Probate/Sanctions: $76,598.32 In Attorney’s Fees For Filing Of Frivolous Probate Petition Under CCP § 128.7 Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

April 30, 2016

Plethora Of Procedural Issues Considered In 2/1 DCA Unpublished Opinion. Enlisted men going through obstacle course. Daniel Field, Georgia. July 1943. Jack Delano, photographer. Library of Congress. In Kerkorian v. Mandekie, Case No. B252861 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 26, 2016) (unpublished), an attorney’s fees award of $76,598.32 (the full request) was

Sanctions/Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Sometimes One’s Choice Of A Fee Entitlement Basis Can Matter

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

March 5, 2016

Here, Prevailing Party Sought CCP § 128.5 Sanctions, Such That Fee Request Proper In Responding Papers—No Notice Of Motion Under Other Provisions Required. Meraz v. Coleman, Case No. B262725 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 3, 2016) (unpublished) illustrates that some successful fee awards may well depend upon the manner in which the fee

Arbitration/Discovery/Sanctions: Discovery Sanctions A Little Shy Of $6,500 Affirmed Against Plaintiff For Discovery Disputes Not Arising Out Of An Arbitration

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

February 7, 2016

Substantive Claims Were To Be Arbitrated, But Prior Discovery Disputes Before Motion To Compel Granted Remained In Superior Court. In Vlahopouliotis v. Vallarta Properties, LLC, Case No. G069832 (5th Dist. Feb. 1, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff did win a motion to compel arbitration of substantive claims under a settlement agreement, but lost preexisting discovery

Sanctions: $12,800 Sanction Under CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Reversed Against Plaintiff

Cases: Sanctions

January 30, 2016

Given That Plaintiff Was Counsel Represented, This Particular Sanction Cannot Be Issued Against Represented Litigant. In Dunlap v. The Walt Disney Co., Case No. B261779 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 29, 2016) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice Rothschild for a 3-0 panel, plaintiff—who was represented by counsel—was hit with a sanction of $12,800

Appeal Sanctions/Sanctions: Lower Court Sanctions Of $16,648.75 Affirmed, But More Assessed On Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Sanctions

January 30, 2016

Another $56,311 In Appellate Sanctions Assessed, Some In Favor Of Opposite Side And Some To the Appellate Court Itself. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 does allow sanctions for frivolous pleadings and other courses of conduct in litigation, including extension to sanctions during appellate proceedings. Bucur v. Ahmad, Case No. D068689 (4th Dist.,

Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Of $15,982 Reversed On Appeal Because Writ Petition Was Not Frivolous

Cases: Sanctions

November 27, 2015

Also, Lower Court Failed To Explain Basis For Sanctions. If you are going to seek sanctions under CCP section 128.7, you must not only show the actions were frivolous but also make sure the lower court explains why they are frivolous. Because both of these important requirements were not met, a reversal of

Costs/Sanctions: Plaintiff Prevailing Party Improperly Denied Post-Judgment Costs And Hit With $7,500 Sanctions Under CCP § 128.7

Cases: Costs, Cases: Sanctions

October 10, 2015

Problem With Lower Court Ruling Was Relying On Time Deadlines And Analysis For Pre-judgment Costs. In Zakarian v. Salumbides, Case No. B255237 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 2, 2015) (unpublished), the trial court was unhappy with post-judgment costs memoranda presented by the prevailing party, granting defense motions to tax costs (based primarily on