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 Briscoe v. The Painted Nail, Case No. B252066 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 20, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates how a CCP § 998 offeror needs to be careful in the drafting […]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Group, Inc., Case No. E056566 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014) (partially published; discovery sanctions reversal unpublished) has two nice takeaways for litigators. First, although discussed in the unpublished portion, this opinion
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
Counsel for Represented Party Has Special Risks in This Area. In 1st American Warehouse Mortgage, Inc. v. Topa Ins. Co., Case No. 246716 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 4, 2014) (unpublished), attorney representing an insurance adjuster and agent was hit with a $27,334 sanctions award under CCP § 128.7. The defense set this
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
Problem Was That Arbitrator Could Construe Settlement Agreement, While Probate Court Could Control Arbitrator Appointment Issues. This is a case where a trust beneficiary in Estate of Buser Trust, Case No. Do63381 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 3, 2014) (unpublished) somewhat stepped into litigation “goo,” especially where both a probate court and arbitrator were
Additional $60,000 Fee Recovery Against Plaintiffs For Dismissed Tort Claims Also Sustained Based On Breadth Of Fees Clause. Peake v. Underwood, Case No D061267 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 25, 2014) (partially published) is a great primer on CCP § 128.7 sanctions, on how to properly present such a sanctions request, and on the
Lower Court Did Not Err In Directing That $1,000 Penalty Be Paid By Party Requesting Default Relief to Superior Court Instead. In Sanai v. Pfeiffer, Case No. B246349 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2014) (unpublished), an in pro per attorney sued an ex-client defendant for $149,240 in legal fees. However, the defense filed a
Due Process At Work In This One. In In re Icenhower, Case No. 12-56329 (9th Cir. June 26, 2014) (published), a bankruptcy court imposed contempt sanctions against defendants for failing to transfer a Mexican coastal villa to plaintiff. The district court, however, vacated $25,000 daily sanctions for failure to vacate on the basis that
Nokia Receives $1.5 Million And Apple About $894,000. U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the Northern District of California, on June 20, 2014, ordered Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and its client Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. to pay more than $2 million in sanctions for disclosing confidential terms of a patent license
