Deals With Third-Party Subpoena Compliance Sanctions. In our August 27, 2014 post, we discussed Vasquez v. Calif. School of Culinary Arts (an unpublished decision at the time), involving sanctions against a non-party for failing to prevail in opposing a subpoena compliance motion. We can report that this opinion was certified for publication on […]
Some Should Have Been Sought In Federal Court, But Vexatious Litigant Sanctions And Addition Of Attorney As Judgment Debtor, Who Assisted Vexatious Litigant, Was Proper. Kempton v. Clark, Case No. B248713 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 25, 2014) (unpublished) is a real imbroglio involving bankruptcy adversary and state court proceedings in which vexatious
Postscript to Our June 25, 2014 Post. On June 25, 2014, we posted on U.S. Magistrate Judge (N.D. Cal.) Paul Grewal’s $2 million sanctions award against Quinn Emanuel and Samsung for alleged disclosure of protected documents in the Apple smartphone litigation, payable to Nokia and Apple. Although a reconsideration motion was brought, Magistrate
Federal Judge Orders Money Paid to Prevailing Adversary Defendant, Reducing Requested Fees By About 34%. In mid-August 2014, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon, in Madison 92nd Street Associates v. Courtyard Mgt. Corp., Case No. 13 Civ. 291 (S.D.N.Y.), sanctioned well-known firm Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP—dubbed as one of the top four “most
Estate of Johnson, Case Nos. A134733 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 18, 2014) (unpublished). An attorney was sanctioned for $7,290 (representing fees incurred by another litigant) for making a false allegation in a probate Third Amended Petition. The basis for the award was under CCP § 128.7. The award was reversed
Trial Judge Needed to Explore Impact of Sino Century Development Case. In Bongan v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Case No. A137303 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 12, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court had awarded $15,100 in attorney’s fees in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff/her attorney under California Rules of Court,
Opposing Parties’ Failure to Raise the Issue in Opposition Was No Waiver. Cooper v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., Case No. B241048 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2014) (unpublished) shows how important the “safe harbor” time period is under CCP § 128.7, a sanctions statute. In this one, a trial court denied a
Federal Decisions Looked to in E-Discovery Area. Vasquez v. Calif. School of Culinary Arts, Case No. B250600 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2014) (unpublished) is an example of how a litigant seeking documents from non-party Sallie Mae really set up a discovery battle very well. The litigant sent a first subpoena, drawing
And . . . 998 Offer Silence On Fees And Costs Resulted In Fee Recovery By Accepting Plaintiff Under Labor Code Section 218.5. Briscoe v. The Painted Nail, Case No. B252066 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 20, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates how a CCP § 998 offeror needs to be careful in the drafting
Court Also Discusses Response Time When Leave Is Granted To Amend After Demurrer Hearing. Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Case No. E056566 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014) (partially published; discovery sanctions reversal unpublished) has two nice takeaways for litigators. First, although discussed in the unpublished portion, this opinion
