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 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 18, 2014) (unpublished).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 […]
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 In Bongan v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Case No. A137303 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 12, 2014) (unpublished), the lower court had awarded $15,100 in attorney’s fees in favor of a defendant and against a plaintiff/her attorney under California Rules of Court,
Opposing Parties’ Failure to Raise the Issue in Opposition Was No Waiver. Cooper v. Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc., Case No. B241048 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2014) (unpublished) shows how important the “safe harbor” time period is under CCP § 128.7, a sanctions statute. In this one, a trial court denied a
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 School of Culinary Arts, Case No. B250600 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 27, 2014) (unpublished) is an example of how a litigant seeking documents from non-party Sallie Mae really set up a discovery battle very well.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
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 Briscoe v. The Painted Nail, Case No. B252066 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 20, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates how a CCP § 998 offeror needs to be careful in the drafting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Group, Inc., Case No. E056566 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014) (partially published; discovery sanctions reversal unpublished) has two nice takeaways for litigators. First, although discussed in the unpublished portion, this opinion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 Co., Case No. 246716 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 4, 2014) (unpublished), attorney representing an insurance adjuster and agent was hit with a $27,334 sanctions award under CCP § 128.7.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
