Cases: Sanctions

Discovery/Sanctions:  Yelp Properly Ordered To Disclose Documents Relating To Anonymous Reviewer Making Alleged Slanderous Comments

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

However, Sanctions Order Relating To Discovery Order Reversed As A Matter Of Law Based On Evolving, Unsettled Area Of The Law.             In Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court, Case Nos. G054358/G054422 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 13, 2017) (published), plaintiffs successfully obtained a discovery order against Yelp compelling it to disclose documents that might reveal […]

Sanctions: Trial Court’s “Vestigial Jurisdiction” When Case Ordered To Arbitration Justified CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Against Litigant’s Counsel

Cases: Sanctions

Continuing Jurisdiction And Waiver Principles Justified Sanctions Order. Old Jail Whipping Post.  St. Augustine, Florida.  John Margolies, photographer.  Library of Congress.             Windsor Mango Way LLC v. Taylor, Case No. B268967 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 28, 2017) (unpublished) is a case where an attorney was sanctioned under CCP § 128.7 for conduct relating to

Probate Two-Fer/Sanctions:  $440,000 Fee Award Based On A Common Fund Properly Awarded Against Entire Trust Res And $16,060 In CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Sustained For Failure To Remove Lis Pendens

Cases: Sanctions

Frye v. Collins, Case No. A143623 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 9, 2017) (unpublished)             In this one, a trustee lost certain trust challenges by other relatives, also saddled with a costs/fees award of $440,000.  This award was affirmed because the lower court decided that it should be paid out of the entire trust res,

Appealability/Sanctions: Client’s Appeal Of Sanctions Only Against Her Attorneys Did Not Confer Appellate Jurisdiction To Review Sanctions Award

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Sanctions

Different Result Had Sanctions Been Imposed On Both Client And Attorney               The probate court in In re Patrice Libaw Trust, Case No. B271815 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 3, 2017) (unpublished) awarded CCP § 128.7 sanctions against only a probate litigant’s attorneys, not the probate litigant (although sanctions were requested against both).  Litigant

Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Remands To District Court The Sanctions Issue In Haeger v. Goodyear “Inherent Power Of The Court” SCOTUS Decision

Cases: Sanctions

    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

Equity, Sanctions, Section 998, Special Fee Shifting Statute, Allocation:  Unpublished Decisions In Last Few Days Address Multiple Fee Issues

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

    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

Sanctions:  SCOTUS Decides Federal “Inherent Power Of The Court” Sanctions Must Satisfy A But-For Causal Connection Between The Misconduct And Fees Incurred By The Innocent Party

Cases: Sanctions

    $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.

Equity/Sanctions: Attorney’s Fees Award Remanded To Recalculate To Account For Previously Awarded Discovery Sanctions

Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions

"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

Scroll to Top