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 Meraz v. Coleman, Case No. B262725 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 3, 2016) (unpublished) illustrates that some successful fee awards may well depend upon the manner in which the fee […]
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 Feb. 1, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff did win a motion to compel arbitration of substantive claims under a settlement agreement, but lost preexisting discovery
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 In Dunlap v. The Walt Disney Co., Case No. B261779 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 29, 2016) (unpublished), authored by Presiding Justice Rothschild for a 3-0 panel, plaintiff—who was represented by counsel—was hit with a sanction of $12,800
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.,
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
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 In Zakarian v. Salumbides, Case No. B255237 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 2, 2015) (unpublished), the trial court was unhappy with post-judgment costs memoranda presented by the prevailing party, granting defense motions to tax costs (based primarily on
CCP § 575.2 So Allows, And Attorneys Beware That Sanctions Can Be Imposed Even Where Attorney Requested, But Was Denied, A Telephonic Appearance. A former attorney failing to attend a mandatory pretrial issues conference and failing to file pretrial documents in Contra Costa Superior Court was hit with $6,178.26 in sanctions after the
. . . However, Imposition Of Sanctions On Individual Attorneys Is Just Fine. Siding with the Seventh and Sixth Circuits, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Kaass Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-56099 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015) (published) reversed $8,480 in attorney’s fees sanctions imposed against a law firm.
Reason: One Claim Was Not Worthy Of Sanctions, Requiring A Remand. For you readers wanting a primer of the scope of the res judicata doctrine, this one may be worth reading. In Zone Sports Center LLC v. Red Head, Inc., Case No. F068984 (5th Dist. July 23, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs’ attorney was
No Precise Linkage Between Harm and Compensatory Sanctions Required, Where Discovery Abuse Was Frequent Or Severe. This next case is a reminder of how one must be candid in discovery, with contrary positions and obstructionist litigation tactics possibly leading to large monetary sanctions against both client and client’s attorneys (as well as non-monetary
