Cases: Sanctions

In The News/Sanctions . . . . Boies Schiller Law Firm Sanctioned About $271,000 In Sanctions For Conflict-Of-Interest Representation

Cases: Sanctions, In The News

  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 […]

Discovery/Sanctions/SLAPP: Round-Up Of Three Unpublished Decisions On Fee/Sanctions Issues For September 18, 2014

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

  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 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 18, 2014) (unpublished).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

Special Fee Shifting Statute/Sanctions: Lower Court’s Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Summary Judgment Seeking Defendant Based On CRC 2.30(b) Reversed And Remanded

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  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      In Bongan v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Case No. A137303 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 12, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court had awarded $15,100 in attorney’s fees in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff/her attorney under California Rules of Court,

Discovery/Sanctions: Party Seeking E-Discovery Entitled To $11,487 In Attorney’s Fees For Successfully Resisting Opposition to Motion To Compel Business Record Subpoena Compliance

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  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 School of Culinary Arts, Case No. B250600 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2014) (unpublished) is an example of how a litigant seeking documents from non-party Sallie Mae really set up a discovery battle very well.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

Section 998/Settlement: 998 Offer Geared To Entry of Judgment, Which Occurred, Meant No Additional Release Had To Be Signed By Accepting Offeree Dismissing The Action

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 998

  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

Discovery/Sanctions: If Motion To Compel Was Untimely, Any Sanctions Awarded Related Thereto Had To Be Reversed

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  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

Sanctions/Contempt: England, 1631

Cases: Sanctions

High Water Mark Of The English Judge’s Contempt Powers      We report the following account of Chief Justice Richardson’s exercise of the court’s contempt power in 1631:      “Richardson, Chief Justice of C.B. at the assizes at Salisbury in the summer of 1631 was assaulted by a prisoner condemned there for felony, who after his

Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Against Attorney Could Not Be Entertained Where Client Alone Appealed

Cases: Sanctions

  No “Aggrieved Party” Appealed.      Attorneys in complex litigation involving a family corporation were assessed with CCP § 128.7 sanctions for filing a frivolous summary judgment motion on defendant’s behalf. Although the sanctions were originally requested against defendant and the law firm, only the law firm got hit with sanctions, and only the defendant

Scroll to Top