Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: Mississippi District Court Decision Not Only Imposes Monetary Sanctions But Disqualifies Attorneys From The Case And Mandates Reporting To State Bars For Using AI Hallucinations In Court Filings

Cases: Sanctions

FRCP 11 Was The Source Of The Sanctions, With Monetary Sanctions Depending On Whether The Conduct Was In Bad Faith Or Merely Careless. We have blogged on numerous California appellate opinions sanctioning attorneys for utilizing AI when it produced hallucinations for which opposing parties or the appellate courts must parse through, eventually discovering that the

Sanctions: Total Sanctions Of $6,000 Under CCP § 128.7, $5,000 To The Primary Defendant And $1,000 To The Lower Court, Was No Abuse Of Discretion Given Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Being Unable To Explain Why They Opposed A Stay Motion And Given Delegation To A Contract Attorney Who Cited To Non-Existent Cases, Hallucinations, And Citations Which Did Not Exist In Cases Relied On In The Stay Opposition

Cases: Sanctions

Attorneys’ Safe Harbor/Technical § 128.7 Arguments Were Forfeited Because They Were Not Raised Before The Lower Court—Not To Mention Attorneys Could Have Withdrawn Their Stay Opposition. Bad facts generally lead to losing appeals, and possibly more repercussions.  Here, both the lower and appellate courts found that lead attorneys in two overlapping class actions had incredulous

In The News, Sanctions: Prominent L.A. Firm Sanctioned Almost $3 Million For Not Being Candid With A District Judge Or Opponent On Expert Discovery Issues

Cases: Sanctions, In The News

Some Of The Sanctions Were Apportioned Separately Against Supervising Partners And Mid-Level Associates, With Some Of The Attorneys Having To Submit To Ethical Curriculum Requirements—In A Word, Partners, Prudently Supervise Your Associates! Although we do not want to mention names (because it out there in the public media anyway), District Judge Chen of the Northern

Discovery, Sanctions: Although Spoliation Issues Sanction Order Was Reversed, $16,000 Discovery Monetary Sanctions Were Proper Based On Motion Compelling Further Discovery Responses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Although Spoliation and Motion To Compel Issues Were Inextricably Intertwined, Motion To Compel Ruling Supported The Sanctions Award Where The Claimed Expenses Were Not Allocated To Any Specific Relief. In Glickman v. Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, Case No. G065111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 13, 2026) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana Court, in a 3-0

Appeal Sanctions, Ethics, Sanctions, SLAPP: 1/4 DCA Affirms $41,580 Attorney’s Fees Award Against Self-Represented Appellant For Previous Appeal, Imposes $10,000 In Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal, And Remands To Lower Court For Award Against Appellant For Fees Incurred By Respondent On Latest Appeal

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

In A Masterclass Of What Not To Do On Appeal, Self-Represented Appellant Challenged A Fee Award Ordered Against Him By Rehashing Issues Determined Previously On Appeal, Raising Issues Not Previously Raised, Attacking The Character Of Respondent And His Counsel, And Insulting Court Staff And Judicial Officers. In a case that has dragged on in excess

Probate, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7(b)(1) Sanctions Affirmed Against A Probate Litigant Filing A New Contesting Petition For An Improper Purpose

Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

CCP § 128.7(b)(2) Represented Litigant Exception Did Not Apply To (b)(1) Sanctions, Resulting In An Upholding Of A $25,013 Sanctions Award Against Losing Trustee. In Gerald C. Fox Foundation v. Fox, Case No. H053043 (6th Dist. Mar. 23, 2026) (unpublished), CCP § 128.7(b)(1) sanctions were imposed against a trustee who filed a new trust petition

Sanctions: First District Court Of Appeal Publishes Opinion Informing In Pro Per Litigants That They Cannot Use And Are Subject For Sanctions When Relying On AI Hallucinations

Cases: Sanctions

This Case Builds On Cases Applicable To Attorneys, But Extends The Prohibition To In Pro Per Litigants. In Sheerer v. Panas, Case No. A171804 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 19, 2026) (partially published; AI discussion published), the appellate court made clear that the recent California case authority which prohibits AI hallucinations equally applies to in

Family Law, Sanctions: Family Law Section 271 Sanctions Of $35,000 Reversed Against Ex-Husband Because . . . .

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive.  However, they are not a general

Sanctions: Sanctions For Missing A Final Status Conference Were Appropriate, But Had To Be Reduced For Calibration To The Actual Expenses For the Missed FSC

Cases: Sanctions

No Huge Dispute, But Appellate Court Only Awarded Sanctions For Direct Expenses Relating To the FSC Violation. Steele v. Paulee Body Shop, Inc., Case No. B344258 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished) shows how a sanctions request needs to be calibrated to expenses incurred on the actual violation, not ancillary expenses which are

Scroll to Top