Cases: Sanctions

Costs/Sanctions: Plaintiff Prevailing Party Improperly Denied Post-Judgment Costs And Hit With $7,500 Sanctions Under CCP § 128.7

Cases: Costs, Cases: Sanctions

  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      In Zakarian v. Salumbides, Case No. B255237 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 2, 2015) (unpublished), the trial court was unhappy with post-judgment costs memoranda presented by the prevailing party, granting defense motions to tax costs (based primarily on […]

Sanctions: Failure To Attend Pretrial Issue Conference And File Pretrial Documents In California State Court Does Give Rise To Monetary Sanctions

Cases: Sanctions

  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

Discovery, Sanctions, Substantiation Of Fees: $2.7 Million In Discovery Sanctions Against Goodyear And Its Attorneys In Tire Failure Case Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  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

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

Scroll to Top