Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: $10,000 128.7 Sanction Against Attorney Affirmed For Filing Of Second Amended Complaint With Allegations Similar To Prior Pleading To Which Demurrer Was Sustained

Cases: Sanctions

  $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     In Concepcion Vinas v. Queen of the Valley Medical Center, Case No. A143541 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 20, 2016) (unpublished), attorney was sanctioned $10,000 under CCP § 128.7 for filing a second amended complaint which had the same allegations as a first amended complaint to […]

Sanctions: Defense Motion To Vacate Sanctions After Plaintiff’s Voluntarily Dismissal Was Not Cognizable

Cases: Sanctions

  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everything, as illustrated in the sanctions area by Cerna v. Molina, Case No. B265272 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 17, 2016) (unpublished).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,

Cases Under Review/Sanctions: SCOTUS Decides Whether “Inherent Authority Of Court” Sanctions Must Have Causal Connection To Sanctioned Conduct And Must Have Procedural Protections Applicable In Criminal Cases

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Sanctions

  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

4/3 DCA Trifecta: Appellate Court Issues Three Fee Unpublished Decisions

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Settlement

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Plaza, LLC v. The Frank and Gertrude R. Doyle Foundation, Case No. G050766 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 22, 2016) (Unpublished) –Split Result Meant No Prevailing Party.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

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

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, In The News

  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/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

  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

  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

  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

Scroll to Top