Cases: Sanctions

In The News . . . . N.D. Cal. Magistrate Judge Does Not Alter $2 Million Sanctions Award Against Quinn Emanuel And Samsung

Cases: Sanctions, In The News

  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 […]

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Discovery/Sanctions/SLAPP: Round-Up Of Three Unpublished Decisions On Fee/Sanctions Issues For September 18, 2014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 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 18, 2014) (unpublished).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      In Bongan v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Case No. A137303 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 12, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court had awarded $15,100 in attorney’s fees in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff/her attorney under California Rules of Court,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 School of Culinary Arts, Case No. B250600 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2014) (unpublished) is an example of how a litigant seeking documents from non-party Sallie Mae really set up a discovery battle very well.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

Scroll to Top