Cases: Sanctions

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 School of Culinary Arts, Case No. B250600 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2014) (unpublished) is an example of how a litigant seeking documents from non-party Sallie Mae really set up a discovery battle very well.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      Briscoe v. The Painted Nail, Case No. B252066 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 20, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates how a CCP § 998 offeror needs to be careful in the drafting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Group, Inc., Case No. E056566 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014) (partially published; discovery sanctions reversal unpublished) has two nice takeaways for litigators.      First, although discussed in the unpublished portion, this opinion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

Arbitration/Probate/Sanctions: Trust Beneficiary Gets Hit With Settlement Agreement Fees/Costs And CCP § 128.7 Sanctions

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

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

Prevailing Party/Sanctions/Section 1717: $60,000 Sanctions Award Against Plaintiffs/Plaintiffs’ Counsel Under CCP § 128.7 Affirmed

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 1717

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

Appealability/Equity/Sanctions: In Pro Per Litigant Denied $31,000 In Compensatory Legal Fees When Trial Judge Discretionary Granted Relief From Default

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Equity, Cases: Sanctions

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

Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Vacating Of Bankruptcy Court Daily Sanctions Until Date Violating Party Knew Sanctions Would Fall

Cases: Sanctions

  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

Scroll to Top