Cases: Sanctions

Sanctions: $60,000 In CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Against Plaintiff And Plaintiff’s Attorney For Years Of Forestalling Foreclosure Efforts Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

  Plaintiff Kept Going After Earlier Sanctions Tentative For $38,080 Was Dismissed For Procedural Defects.     This next post counsels litigants and their counsel that there is a point where the battle has been lost, under penalty of having sanctions imposed for further litigation—which is exactly what happened.     In Ledesma v. JPMorgan Chase, Case […]

Sanctions: $10,443 Sanction Against Plaintiff’s Attorney Under CCP § 128.7 Reversed For Dilatory Substituting Out/Withdrawal Of Case Because This Section Does Not Target Generalized Bad Behavior

Cases: Sanctions

  No Flawed Pleading Being Pursued or Advocated, and Safe Harbor 21 Day Period Not Followed.      Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, reversed a $10,443 sanctions award against plaintiff’s attorney of $10,443 under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 founded on the lower court’s perception that the attorney should have substituted out

Costs, Section 998, Sanctions: Plaintiffs Prevailing In Boundary Dispute Entitled To Costs For Uncalled Expert Witness And Defendant Properly Assessed Sanctions For Filing Untimely Discovery Sanctions Motion

Cases: Costs, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998

       Costs and sanctions are generally discretionary matters, even if the record might show a different conclusion could have been reached. Appellate courts are loathe to disturb a trial court’s conclusion in such matters, as Sdun v. Patterson, Case No. C070623 (3d Dist. Feb. 18, 2015) (unpublished) aptly illustrates.      There, plaintiffs won a

Sanctions: $9,999.99 CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions Award Against Client And Attorney Attempting To Selectively Enforce Arbitration Award Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

  Multiple Bases Supported Sanctions Award.      You gotta really look at the facts when appealing a discretionary sanctions award. If they bad, you might want to forego and go onto more productive ventures. Archer v. Archer, Case No. B254750 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 26, 2015) (unpublished) teaches that well.     This one involved

Sanctions: $9,120 CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Order Against Husband And His Counsel In Civil Action Reversed Because Record Did Not Show Improper Motive

Cases: Sanctions

  Civil Action Was Part of Bitter Dissolution Dispute.      Husband, during the pendency of apparent bitter dissolution proceedings with his former wife, filed multiple civil lawsuits against wife, her parents, and her parents’ trust. Earlier, in one of the actions, the assigned civil judge refused to deem the matter related to the family law

POOF!/Sanctions: Appellate Reversal Of Without Leave Demurrer Ruling Meant Taxpayer’s Constitutionality Challenge Was Not Frivolous

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

  Lower Court’s $5,000 Sanctions Order Reversed.     Egyptian taxpayers seized for non-payment of taxes.  H.G. Wells, The Outline of History (1920).  From Wikipedia article on Tax Resistance.       In Berjikian v. Franchise Tax Board, Case No. B252427 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 12, 2015) (unpublished), two taxpayers challenged the constitutionality of a Business

Sanctions: Homeowner Eventually Losing Residential Foreclosure Challenge Also Correctly Denied Sanctions Under CCP Section 128.7

Cases: Sanctions

  False Statement By Lender’s Defense Counsel Occurred in Superseded Pleading.      In Tyshkevich v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case No. C070764 (3d Dist. Dec. 26, 2014) (unpublished), homeowner lost both a challenge to a residential foreclosure and a request for sanctions against lender’s defense counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The lender’s

Private Attorney General/Sanctions/Special Fee Shifting: Defendants Winning Demurrer On B & P Code Section Relating to Legal Advertising Improperly Awarded Fees Under B&P Code § 6158.4(i), Incorporating Private Attorney General Fee Entitlemen

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  $18,900 Fee Award Goes POOF!, But Opponent’s CCP § 128.7 Motion Correctly Denied Where Defendants Trimmed Fee Request Down After Getting Safe Harbor Documents.      This next opinion, Ashegian v. Beirne, Case No. B254020 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished), is interesting because it deals with a first impression issue relating to

Scroll to Top