Cases: Sanctions

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 ​In Sanai v. Pfeiffer, Case No. B246349 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2014) (unpublished), an in pro per attorney sued an ex-client defendant for $149,240 in legal fees.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

Discovery/Sanctions: Quinn Emanuel Firm And Client Samsung Ordered To Pay More Than $2 Million In Discovery Sanctions For Disclosing Confidential License Terms Between Apple And Nokia To Samsung

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  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

Discovery/Sanctions: Appeal By Plaintiff’s Attorney From Adverse Discovery Monetary Sanctions Award Dismissed As Moot

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  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

Sanctions: $6,000 Sanctions Against Plaintiff/Its Counsel Affirmed For Frivolous CEQA Claim

Cases: Sanctions

  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

Sanctions: Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office, Hit With $500 Sanctions Under CCP § 177.5, Does Not Get Order Overturned On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

  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

Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Withdraws and Reissues Islamic Shura Opinion

Cases: Sanctions

  Rule 11 Sanctions Were Inappropriate When Rendered After Merits Decided And After Defendants Corrected Pleadings.      In our July 31, 2013 post, we discussed Islamic Shura Council v. FBI, 725 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2013), where the Ninth Circuit reversed a Rule 11 sanctions order which was issued after a merits determination and after

Sanctions: Fourth District, Division 1 Follows Galleria – CCP § 128.7 Safe Harbor Provision Not Satisfied Unless Unfiled Motion Has Definitive Hearing Date

Cases: Sanctions

  Although Unpublished, Does Tell Lower Courts You Have To Calendar and Reserve a Date Even If the Motion Is Unfiled And Potentially Never Heard.      This next case, although unpublished, is very interesting, and it will see how it pans out for practitioners and superior courts as far as calendaring/scheduling/reserving dates for motions, given

Scroll to Top