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 This is a case where a trust beneficiary in Estate of Buser Trust, Case No. Do63381 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 3, 2014) (unpublished) somewhat stepped into litigation “goo,” especially where both a probate court and arbitrator were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 In Sanai v. Pfeiffer, Case No. B246349 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2014) (unpublished), an in pro per attorney sued an ex-client defendant for $149,240 in legal fees.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
Parties Agreed to Settlement Where Neither Plaintiff Nor His Attorneys Liable for Discovery Sanctions, Mooting the Appeal. Ya know, sometimes you should simply throw in the towel once a dispute has been resolved, aiding the appellate court in saving some resources so that they can dismiss an appeal without the need for an
Lower Court Denial Based on Rescheduled Hearing Date Was No Reason to Deny. In Whitehill v. Valente, Case No. A137613 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 18, 2014) (unpublished), a litigant was denied CCP § 128.7 sanctions for not satisfying the 21 day “safe harbor” period for the opposing side to withdraw a pleading/comply
Public Resources Code Section 21169.11 Imposes Discretionary Sanction Power on Lower Court, Judged By An Objective Standard as to Frivolousness. Public Resources Code section 21169.11 provides that a lower court may impose an appropriate sanction, up to $10,000, upon parties, attorneys, or law firms responsible for bringing/prosecuting a frivolous CEQA claim. In Helping
One of Our Few Posts Which Might Interest Criminal Practitioners. This is one of the few posts that might interest criminal practitioners or practitioners who have a mixed criminal/civil practice. The Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office in Lee v. Superior Court, Case No. H039380 (6th Dist. Apr. 14, 2014) (unpublished) had a
